Princess of Duchess baby, boy or girl?

Is this my life?

Who cares, I'm a bigot.

deleted

Quote: DeMango

Who cares, I'm a bigot.

Me too.

Who's the Princess of Duchess?

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Who's the Princess of Duchess?

If you are talking about Katherine, her titles are:

Princess William
Katherine, Duchess of Cambridge

If the first title seems funny, just remember that until WWII a married woman in the USA was addressed as Mrs. John Smith with no trace of her first name. Royals maintain naming conventions from a thousand years ago.

When it comes to betting on the birth of a a Royal, always bet on Sunday.

Quote: 98Clubs

When it comes to betting on the birth of a a Royal, always bet on Sunday.

And you base this advice on what? Past experience with the princes and princesses of Britain?


Fri, Jun 10, 1921 Phillip
Wed, Apr 21, 1926 Elizabeth
Sun, Nov 14, 1948 Charles
Tue, Aug 15, 1950 Anne
Fri, Feb 19, 1960 Andrew
Tue, Mar 10, 1964 Edward
Mon, Jun 21, 1982 William
Sat, Sep 15, 1984 Harry
Mon, Aug 8, 1988 Beatrice
Fri, Mar 23, 1990 Eugenie
Mon, Dec 17, 2007 James
Sat, Nov 8, 2003 Louise

Thu, Aug 21, 1930 Margaret
Sat, Aug 26, 1944 Richard
Wed, Oct 9, 1935 Edward
Sat, Jul 4, 1942 Michael
Fri, Dec 25, 1936 Alexandra

Quote: pacomartin

If you are talking about Katherine, her titles are:

Princess William
Katherine, Duchess of Cambridge

If the first title seems funny, just remember that until WWII a married woman in the USA was addressed as Mrs. John Smith with no trace of her first name. Royals maintain naming conventions from a thousand years ago.

Do they still do that at Wimbledon? I remember when Chris Evert played there after marrying John Lloyd, the scoreboard always showed her as "Mrs. J. Lloyd".

Actually, it is almost certainly because of this "rule" that William was given the title Duke of Cambridge. They had the same problem with Sarah Ferguson "officially" being called "Princess Andrew" before Andrew was titled Duke of York.
And before anyone says, "What about 'Princess Diana'?", that was what people (and most of the media) called her, but her official title was, "Her Royal Highness, Diana, Princess of Wales", just as Prince Harry's official title is "His Royal Highness, Prince Henry of Wales."

(Slight tangent: I assume the reason Charles, Andrew, and William are Dukes while Edward is "only" an Earl is, they want him to be the next Duke of Edinburgh.)

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Who's the Princess of Duchess?

Some Blueblood who lives in a nice place in Hyde Park, NY.

According to the media Amerika is much in love with our lizards. Enough come over each year to tour the castles and gawk outside Buckingham Palace, getting pictures taken with guardsmen who's regiment is responsible for the death of many bears for their skins.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Do they still do that at Wimbledon? I remember when Chris Evert played there after marrying John Lloyd, the scoreboard always showed her as "Mrs. J. Lloyd".

No, it's changed recently and there are no titles period as seen in the photo below. But umpires will still say things like: "Advantage Miss/Mrs. (insert name here)"



Li Na (not pictured) is married.

50.5% of births, in the US at least, are boys.

Quote: egalite

According to the media Amerika is much in love with our lizards. Enough come over each year to tour the castles and gawk outside Buckingham Palace, getting pictures taken with guardsmen who's regiment is responsible for the death of many bears for their skins.

Not sure that any bears are killed just to outfit your guardsman. Several dozen bears are put down every year in greater Vancouver, Canada because they have lost their fear of humans and become to dangerous in the urban environment.

Quote: Wizard

50.5% of births, in the US at least, are boys.

How did I wind up with 3 daughters, 11 granddaughters, i grandson ? What's the odds on that . LOL

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Do they still do that at Wimbledon? I remember when Chris Evert played there after marrying John Lloyd, the scoreboard always showed her as "Mrs. J. Lloyd".

Actually, it is almost certainly because of this "rule" that William was given the title Duke of Cambridge. They had the same problem with Sarah Ferguson "officially" being called "Princess Andrew" before Andrew was titled Duke of York.
And before anyone says, "What about 'Princess Diana'?", that was what people (and most of the media) called her, but her official title was, "Her Royal Highness, Diana, Princess of Wales", just as Prince Harry's official title is "His Royal Highness, Prince Henry of Wales."

(Slight tangent: I assume the reason Charles, Andrew, and William are Dukes while Edward is "only" an Earl is, they want him to be the next Duke of Edinburgh.)

I believe that they still do it at Wimbledon out of tradition.

The title of Duke was given by the monarch to the most powerful people in the kingdom. Dukes were frequently executed because they wished to extend their power. But almost always the sons of the monarch were also made Dukes. The last time someone who was not a son was made a Duke was about a hundred years ago when the title was given to a son-in-law . It has been 200 years since someone who was not part of the family became a Duke (The Duke of Westminster).

The second son often has no title. So Prince Michael (the Queen's first cousin) has no other title. His wife is called Princess Michael.

The Prince Andrew was made a Duke on his Wedding day. Sarah's title was Princess Andrew, but her higher title is Sarah, Duchess of York. Upon their divorce both Sarah and Diana lost the right to use "Her Royal Highness" in front of their name.

Princess Diana, Princess Sarah, Princess Katherine are all incorrect forms of address. They are reserved for Princesses of the blood.

Quote: Wizard

50.5% of births, in the US at least, are boys.

This is nature making up for higher male mortality.

Quote: pacomartin

The second son often has no title. So Prince Michael (the Queen's first cousin) has no other title. His wife is called Princess Michael.

Isn't Duke of York traditionally given to the monarch's second son (assuming nobody else currently has the title)? IIRC, the previous Duke of York was George V's second son, who would become George VI (and as he had no sons, he didn't give the title to anyone).

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Isn't Duke of York traditionally given to the monarch's second son (assuming nobody else currently has the title)? IIRC, the previous Duke of York was George V's second son, who would become George VI (and as he had no sons, he didn't give the title to anyone).

Technically the title of George VI as Duke of York ceases to exist when he becomes monarch. He can give the title to his son, but he must re-create it. The title of Duke of York is well known since it has only passed from father to son intact in 1402 and 1460. Every other time it gets interrupted somehow. The present Duke of York (Prince Andrew) has no sons. Unless they change the law, he cannot pass it onto his oldest daughter, Beatrice.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean the second son of the monarch. I meant the second son of a royal Duke. The Queen had four first cousins that were children of son's of King George V. As such they were all royal, 4 princes and 1 princess. There were two second sons. The second son of the Duke of Gloucester got married and studied to be an architect. Then his older brother died unmarried at age 30 in the 1970's in a plane accident, and the second son abandoned his career to become a royal Duke. The Duke of Kent had two sons. The Dukedome cannot go to both sons. The older brother became the Duke of Kent, and the younger son remained Prince Michael his whole life (he's in his 60's now). His wife is called Princess Michael, because he has no other title.

Prince Michael's daughter in law plays Chloe on Two and Half Men (the British girlfriend of Ashton Kutcher).

Quote: egalite

According to the media Amerika is much in love with our lizards. Enough come over each year to tour the castles and gawk outside Buckingham Palace, getting pictures taken with guardsmen who's regiment is responsible for the death of many bears for their skins.

The American love affair with the British monarchy essentially began with Queen Victoria and the Prince of Wales. It shifted into high gear in the 1850's with the HMS Resolute and Prince Edward's visit to North America in 1860.

It marks the shift in American sentiment from the anti-royalty and disliking the peerage, to adoring them.

Quote: AZDuffman

This is nature making up for higher male mortality.

Maybe. I don't think anyone really knows. I just know that for every 200 Social Security card applications for newborns 101 are for boys and 99 for girls.

Quote: Wizard

Maybe. I don't think anyone really knows. I just know that for every 200 Social Security card applications for newborns 101 are for boys and 99 for girls.

The male chromosome the sperm carries is lighter than the female chromosome. This means that the sperm with the male chromosome swim faster and thus get to the egg slightly quicker. Resulting in slightly more male than female births.

Quote: Wizard

Maybe. I don't think anyone really knows. I just know that for every 200 Social Security card applications for newborns 101 are for boys and 99 for girls.

There is discussion of gender inequality on Fox New.

The article implies that it is a worldwide phenomena, it is just more pronounced in some Asian countries.

Quote: pacomartin

There is discussion of gender inequality on Fox New.

The article implies that it is a worldwide phenomena, it is just more pronounced in some Asian countries.

That's what happens when you murder your daughters.

deleted

tears of joy.....what a glorious day. God save the Queen.....or something like that...

deleted

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I saw it flipping channels. And as soon as I read it, I kept flipping. I don't give two $h!ts about those people.

Breaking news.....the boy has crooked teeth and big ears

Quote: treetopbuddy

Breaking news.....the boy has crooked teeth and big ears

I've always wondered how a German family adopted English secondary characteristics :P

But what will he be named? They are making us wait two long torturous days to find out....... Dumbo of Cambridge?

Quote: Nareed

I've always wondered how a German family adopted English secondary characteristics :P

inbreeding?

Quote: treetopbuddy

But what will he be named? They are making us wait two long torturous days to find out....... Dumbo of Cambridge?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/5896141481a8a512a609f77535e19cf6.png

Quote: treetopbuddy

But what will he be named? They are making us wait two long torturous days to find out....... Dumbo of Cambridge?

To be fair, the little bundle of joy, who will be keeping the Royal Servants up all night for months to come, has not yet done anything at all. Who nkows? He may be the one who abolishes the monarchy (and I may win the lotto without buying a ticket and six times in a row).

Quote: Nareed

He may be the one who abolishes the monarchy

You have to keep in mind that England tried that once.

I do see more and more countries deciding not to have the king/queen as their head of state - Australia had a vote on this back in 1999 (and "the version I heard was," it might have passed had the replacement for the Governor-General been given veto powers over acts of Parliament).

Quote: ThatDonGuy

You have to keep in mind that England tried that once.

I keep hoping Charles will so (further) disgrace the monarchy it will die of embarrassment.

deleted

I think the Prince of Wails will step aside. He made that choice when he insisted on Chinchilla...er, I mean Camilla. He just wants to be a reclusive intellectual and cuddle up with the one person he truly loves, awful as she may be.

Sigh.

If the Royals were a corporation, they would be a self-sustaining. The British Government gets revenue from the Crown Estate in the tune of 211 million pounds a year, while expenditures total about 36 million pounds a year (plus undisclosed security costs). So the Royal contribute about 175 million pounds to the British economy every year, and all Royals pay taxes on their income.

And while we can argue about the usefulness of Royal families through the world, they perform an important function in society throughout the world. The Royals are celebrities, like stars in Hollywood. They perform charitable functions.

So I don't mind the fact that they exist.

The Royal Family are extreme popular in the UK. Why someone would feel they can tell another society that one of their key traditions is irrelevant boggles the mind. Understandably they are irrelevant to Americans but in their own country they are as relevant a family as you could possibly find.

If I had that gig, hopefully someone would slap me if I decided I wanted to give it all up. They haven't been chopping the heads off of monarchs for awhile over there. It's mostly perks, low risk, feel good charity work, lots of travel, good food, maid and butler service, the best hotels and let them eat cake jokes around the royal dinner table when none of the servants or commoners are around.

I think they are extremely relevant and worthwhile, especially this generation of children. I'm American, but an Anglophile and descendant (family came to Canada in the late 19th century). They have the opportunity to draw attention to things greater than themselves (as rxwine iterated), and by and large, in the last 25 years or so they've done a fine job of it. I think there was a wake-up call that was both badly needed and well heeded in the year (not sure exactly but approx 1993?) that Windsor Castle burned and Charles/Diana sunk to its lowest point. Since then they all have done so much to improve their relevancy and behavior that the monarchy has really transitioned into a modern ideal. I even like Harry being a lusty, life-loving throwback to Henry VIII (definitely his namesake and mentor if history is any guide) and would not judge him harshly for his stunts. All JMHO from a distance.

Quote: boymimbo

And while we can argue about the usefulness of Royal families through the world, they perform an important function in society throughout the world. The Royals are celebrities, like stars in Hollywood. They perform charitable functions.

Queen Victoria who introduced the concept that charity was one of the highest functions of the monarch. It was during her reign, and partly because of her that the USA became reconciled with Britain.

By 1830 the United States and England were approaching one another in population. US was 12.87 million of which 2 million were slaves. England was 13 million and the United Kingdom was 16.54 million (with Scotland and Ireland). So Queen Victoria came to power in 1837 about the time when the countries were roughly equal in size. They were still very different countries, but America began to admire the monarchy.

Did anybody get "chills" upon the unveiling of the Royal Baby? All flags that are at half mast for whatever reason should be raised, even if for just a moment.

I thought it was very touching that they honored Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, who was murdered on August 27, 1979 in Sligo, Ireland.

Prince Charles was supposed to marry Lady Amanda (a granddaughter of Louis Mountbatten who was also Charles's second cousin). But when her grandfather was killed by the IRA bomb, it also killed her younger brother, wounded another brother and killed her grandmother. After that she no longer wanted to be a royal and she turned down Charles's proposal.

The murder of Louis was very difficult on Charles. It was actually what he talked about to Diana when they met (when she was age 18). She was very kind, and it persuaded Charles to ask her to marry him.

If you think it strange that Charles should be set up with his second cousin (she was being groomed from age 17) remember that Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip are closely related in two different ways. They are second cousins one generation removed by common descent from King Christian X of Denmark, and they are also third cousins by common descent from Queen Victoria.

Queen Elizabeth is cousins (third through seventh) with 10 of the the other monarchs in Europe.

Quote: pacomartin

If you think it strange that Charles should be set up with his second cousin

Oh, no, not at all. Inbreeding in royalty is as old as inbreeding and royalty. Claudius (to quote Mike duncan "Yes, that Claudius") married his niece Agrippina (though I forget if that union spawned an offspring; his successor, Nero (yes, that Nero) was the son of Claudius' cousin from a previous marriage).

Quote: pacomartin

If you think it strange that Charles should be set up with his second cousin (she was being groomed from age 17) remember that Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip are closely related in two different ways. They are second cousins one generation removed by common descent from King Christian X of Denmark, and they are also third cousins by common descent from Queen Victoria.

Queen Elizabeth is cousins (third through seventh) with 10 of the the other monarchs in Europe.

That explains why they're all expert banjo players.

Quote: Jeepster

That explains why they're all expert banjo players.

Early monarchs of Britain did not marry close relatives. But when Henry 8th died in the 16th century, marriages that produced an official consort were all to the first, second or third cousins (possibly a generation removed) until 1923 when the Duke of York married Elizabeth (think King's Speech). It should be pointed out that Prince Edward was only 28 years old when his younger brother married, and was still expected to marry one of his cousins and become King. He of course went off the deep end and married a twice divorced American socialite (but only after resigning as king).

British monarchs never engaged in the practice of marrying their niece.

Queen Mary I (bloody Mary) --- first cousin one generation removed: Philip II of Spain
Phillip II was younger than Mary by 11 years (very unusual), and was the child of the marriage of two of Mary's first cousins. By far the most consanguineous marriage of a British monarch. The great grandson of Phillip II, Charles the Hexed was a genetic monstrosity. His family was so inbred, it was, it was the genetic equivalent to being born to full blooded brother and sister. He had many disabilities, including the lack of ability to produce children despite being given beautiful wives.


Queen Elizabeth I--- never married
King James I Stuart--- 3rd cousin once removed: Anne of Denmark
King Charles I Stuart--- 3rd cousin once removed: Henrietta Maria of France
King Charles II Stuart --- no legitimate wife
King James II Stuart--- no known relation Anne Hyde (died before becoming a consort)
King James II Stuart--- 3rd cousin once removed: Mary of Modena
Queen Mary II--- first cousin: William III (co-monarchs)
Queen Anne--- 2nd cousin once removed: Prince George of Denmark
King George I---first cousin: Sophia Dorothea of Celle
King George II--- 3rd cousin once removed: Caroline of Ansbach
King George III--- 3rd cousin: Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz
King George IV--- Maria Fitzherbert (marriage declared invalid)
King George IV---first cousin: Caroline of Brunswick
King William IV--- 3rd cousin once removed: Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen
Queen Victoria--- first cousin: Albert, Prince Consort
King Edward VII---3rd cousin: Alexandra of Denmark
King George V--- 2nd cousin once removed: Mary of Teck
King Edward VIII--- (not consort) Wallis, Duchess of Windsor

King George VI--- 13th cousin: Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
Queen Elizabeth II--- 2nd cousin once removed: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh


Charles, Prince of Wales was engaged to his second cousin, but married his 7th cousin one generation removed (Diana) and then his 11th cousin (Camilla).

Prince William and Katherine are probably 15th cousins, but her genetic material is not as carefully researched, and requires some speculation.