RussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7805 posts, RR: 21 Posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3352 times:
Couldn't see this posted, apologies if I missed it.
The Duchess of Cambridge is expecting a child - so congrats to the happy couple. It is significant because this child will succeed to the throne after William, regardless of sex - as detailed in the article here.
WestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1971 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3324 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter): Personally, I think it's about time we had a funkily-named monarch, so here's hoping for something slightly more unusual in the naming department (wishful thinking, I know).
Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter): Anyway, Kate has been hospitalised the last couple of days owing to severe pregnancy-related sickness. Here's hoping she'll be fine.
I heard on the news this evening that her hospitalization was the only reason they disclosed that she was pregnant. Her original plan was to tell the family at Christmas. The same news report said that the Queen was only told the good news about half an hour before the media knew!
Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 3): Quoting hOMSaR (Reply 2):
If this were to actually happen, then I presume that the first one out gets the throne?
That would certainly make for a very bitter second-born!
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13856 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3303 times:
This potential person of the throne may not make there until they are in their 70's or about 2080 or so, considering the longevity of his ancestors.
Please, give mom and dad their privacy and the media go away.
qf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 3388 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3302 times:
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 4): That would certainly make for a very bitter second-born!
Or a very bitter first born. The second born will get everything the first born gets except the same relentless degree of scrutiny and pressure for their entire lives that the crown brings.
Sure there would be expectations placed on both, but you just have to look at Diana vs Sarah Fergusen to see how differently the future successor and his/her siblings are seen/treated ( and yes I know that the situations were very different).
nighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5358 posts, RR: 30
Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3220 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 11): I don't see how that's significant, there is a queen right now isn't it ?
It is significant because up until recently, a daughter would only be heir to the throne if she had no male siblings. If her parents later had a male child, she would rank below her younger brother.
If this baby is born a girl then it will be 3rd in line to the throne regardless of any other siblings, whereas before she would only be third in line as long as William didn't give birth to a subsequent male child.
So just ignore it then? Unless that is you wouldn't mind us going into the droves of pointless American-related threads on here and voicing our lack of interest in those topics.
Quoting qf002 (Reply 8): Or a very bitter first born. The second born will get everything the first born gets except the same relentless degree of scrutiny and pressure for their entire lives that the crown brings.
That's a good point. But title seems to be fairly important to this group, so I would assume that it will always be with the second-born that they were minutes from being one step ahead in line.
But we don't even know if it's twins yet, so we're arguing a hypothetical here.
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 10): I hope the child inherits HER looks and HER intelligence. I can't think of too much genetic contribution from William would benefit this child. I'm a Monarchist but not overly impressed with William.
Genetic contribution from William: Better judgement than Harry.