RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6287 posts, RR: 23 Posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1772 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.
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).
Anyway, Kate has been hospitalised the last couple of days owing to severe pregnancy-related sickness. Here's hoping she'll be fine.
TheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2346 posts, RR: 7 Reply 1, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1767 times:
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.
Yes, Congrats to them both.
They say her severe morning sickness is due to the fact that she may be pregnant with twins, Oh the nappies !!!
Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
WestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1267 posts, RR: 7 Reply 4, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1744 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?
Correct !
That would certainly make for a very bitter second-born!
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4965 posts, RR: 14 Reply 5, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1739 times:
Ohh boy, more hype sure this baby's going to be the next monarch, but seriously, watch the US do something, such as, knock off Kim Jong-Un right after this baby's birth
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12333 posts, RR: 12 Reply 7, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1723 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, 2555 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1722 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).
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15989 posts, RR: 59 Reply 10, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1714 times:
Yes, congrats to the Royal couple.
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.
Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 1): They say her severe morning sickness is due to the fact that she may be pregnant with twins
I hear another cause was her low body weight which can contribute to severe morning sickness. There is a medical term for this which escapes me.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4965 posts, RR: 14 Reply 14, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1658 times:
Quoting cws818 (Reply 13): Quoting PHX787 (Reply 5):
but seriously, watch the US do something, such as, knock off Kim Jong-Un right after this baby's birth
I fail to see how those two potential events are even remotely related or why they would ever be.
nighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 4989 posts, RR: 38 Reply 16, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1640 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.
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6287 posts, RR: 23 Reply 18, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1565 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 11): I don't see how that's significant, there is a queen right now isn't it ?
As others have pointed out - only because she had no male sibling.
Quoting scbriml (Reply 17): And the giveafuck-o-meter is registering a big fat zero. This may change slightly if we get a public holiday to celebrate the birth (very unlikely).
I sympathise with this view. Nonetheless, a significant bit of news that I felt was worthy of a bit of discussion, not least to find out how many other people were pretty underwhelmed by it.
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.
Airstud From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1855 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1443 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
When I was a kid, I used to think that males in the royal family weren't allowed to have a name other than Edward, George, Henry, Charles, or Richard.
I suppose it is OK if RussianJet gets his way and they name the baby "Sunshine Space-Tweezers."
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2183 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1435 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Congratulations to the Royal couple on the expectant birth of the new third in line to the throne
Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter): Personally, I think it's about time we had a funkily-named monarch
I have a feeling that if the child is female, she'll be named Diana in honour of the late Princess Diana.
I don't think we should have a funkily named monarch, personally, but maybe it's because I'm too old fashioned
Boeing 777 fanboy
25 KiwiRob: Maybe one of her names but not her first name, that would be stupid and sure to create problems.
26 mariner: I hope not. I think the expectations heaped on the child, especially by the media, would be awful. mariner
27 zkojq: I was visiting some old folks today...they couldn't talk about anything other than the royal foetus. More seriously, I wonder what will be left of the
28 na: Nice to hear, I wish all three involved a happy time ahead! One cant say that the Windsors do have much problems these days. Absolutely agreed, a roya
29 CXB77L: That's a fair point. I sincerely hope that no one has to go through the sort of attention and invasions of privacy that Diana had to endure. Could be
30 na: Interesting. Perhaps the change to become a Republic doesnt change anything to the positive. From far away, I cant see anything that would make life
32 SmittyOne: "There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures...and the Dutch." - Austin "Danger" Powe
33 babybus: The Royals don't want privacy. It's the media attention that keeps them on the throne. Wills and his brother are groomed to have constant newsworthy
35 Bongodog1964: We now have 7 months of media frenzy to look forward to. Waiting in the queue to buy my morning paper yesterday and a man in front of me was moaning t
36 pvjin: Oh no, now media will be full of useless hype even in here Finland... I hope it won't be as bad and annoying as when Swedish royal family got a new me
37 na: There will surely be a Media overkill, I just hope they leave them a little privacy. But the less official news, the more lies the Yellow Press will
38 Aesma: BTW, I heard the TV say the conception happened in France, don't know if it's true but it would be funny.
39 TheCommodore: Not always enough control it would seem.... Remember a few weeks ago in the worlds press corp. The topless pics of Kate, while they were on holiday.
40 RussianJet: Probably not there, but you never know. But here, in the UK where I was born and brought up, and live, it will be in the press a lot. That was the fo
41 thegreatRDU: Congrats to the "royals" haha I cannot even type that with a straight face...
42 slider: Amen. I'd love to, except it's freaking everywhere. The media just immerses itself in this royal crapola incessantly and it's everywhere. I've never
43 CXB77L: Not here on A.net it's not. There's just this one single thread. You can choose not to click on it. That just shows your lack of knowledge on the sub
44 slider: So please correct me then if I'm mistaken.
45 na: Why then do you waste some minutes to write such a long post and even come back later? The expert speaks...
46 mariner: The unborn child's father and future uncle are both working - by choice - in the military, with one of them in the front line in Afghanistan and an a
47 pellegrine: Ok well I'm not intolerant of anyone's culture. I don't think US news needs to dominate on this...understandable if British news chooses to. Even if
48 CXB77L: Members of the British Royal Family have traditionally served - and indeed are expected to serve - in the military. Prince William is a RAF Rescue He
49 wolverine: I don't understand what this hype is all about. She's pregnant, so what? All the best for her and her kid! But just because she is married to a Royal
50 mariner: LOL - for anyone living within a constitutional monarchy, it is a bit special. It assures the succession. As to the celebrity aspect of it, who knows
51 RussianJet: Yup. The Royal Family here are, by definition, special - so yes.
52 zkojq: Myself as well, but things could have changed in 60-70 years time. I hope they don't. I like this system as the vast majority of the population likes
53 Aesma: Monarchies only work thanks to history, they can't appear out of thin air (I mean in our current world, in the past they did). So by definition they'r
54 zkojq: In practice it makes very little difference. This is not an absolute monarchy what we are talking about. Maybe several hundred years ago, but much of
55 mariner: That's a curious idea. No person is "worth" more than any other just because they are royal. As head of state, the monarch (in the UK) is the represe
56 na: Calm down. The world is full of overrated people and things. Very good said. It has something to it that the head of state isnt a politician who marc
57 RussianJet: It wasn't all that long ago that Bokasa made himself emperor of the CAR. Admittedly his reign wasn't a resounding success....
58 Quokkas: The Queen (in the UK) is representative of the British State, not the people. While the monarch may be above party politics, she is not outside of po
59 mariner: Well - yes. Any head of state is representative of that state. I don't know what else the term means. In this instance, as established with the Civil
60 zippyjet: I wish them the best but I don't give a rat's pattotty about the royals (pain in the you know what) I've already had enough of the hype
61 slider: Bully for you. Enjoy being subservient to another by choice. I understand that--and I appreciate the history of this, which goes back to kings riding
62 CXB77L: Who said anything about being subservient? In a Constitutional Monarchy, the Monarch reigns by consent of Parliament, but the Monarch does not 'rule'
63 slider: Don't know if I agree on that one one bit. Is there an economic impact statement? I've been to London numerous times and all of my activities have no
64 mariner: You seem to have a very medieval concept of the monarchy. I respect the office, and the woman presently holding it, in ways I doubt I would respect a
65 Quokkas: Would they actually need to? There have been reports in the British media covering how Prince Charles has used his position to block developments tha
66 mariner: I'd need to know a lot more about it than you have provided to make an assessment of it. Morrissey (again) has proclaimed the the royal family is dir
67 Quokkas: I don't know who this Morrissey is but the Guardian has published several reports on how the Prince of Wales has used his powers. They have also reve
68 mariner: I didn't dispute that it may have happened. Almost any person in a position of power, perceived or actual, can persuade others to their point of view
Sponsor Message: 
From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6287 posts, 
From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2346 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 803 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1267 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4965 posts, 
sure this baby's going to be the next monarch, but seriously, watch the US do something, such as, knock off Kim Jong-Un right after this baby's birth 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4789 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 4845 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 4989 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11362 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
