The UK Royal Baby is being born...

gobnaitolunacy · 11-07-2013 01:06PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Kate is a "commoner", if you want to use that expression.

She is, and your point is...?

c_man · 11-07-2013 01:08PM

The only bits I've heard of it are from the local Guardian readers who keep getting their knickers in a twist over it. They can't wait to tell you how much they don't care about it (nobody else really bringing it up), before quickly moving onto a rant about the "bedroom tax".

Why don't these people actually move to England?

wretcheddomain · 11-07-2013 01:09PM

Honestly, who gives a flying s**t?

What about the so-called 'Royal babies' of Norway, Denmark and Belgium? Are they any way 'less Royal' given we don't talk about them?

Likewise, this is a non-event.

There's no such thing as Royal blood. Her baby is no more valuable than any other baby being born today. Inherited titles don't make the baby any more special.

But by discussing this, we're making the assumption that somehow her baby is in fact more important, thus there's only one thing left to do to solve this.

/thread

I Heart Internet · 11-07-2013 01:10PM

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

She is, and your point is...?

You know what my point is.

Your statement could have been taken as meaning two things:

1) You're welcoming Kate as a commoner to flush out centuries of inbreeding
2) You're hoping for a commoner to flush out centuries of inbreeding and forgetting that Kate is a commoner.

I chose no. 2. Don't forget that Fergie (no, not him) was also a commoner.

Try to be more precise in your use of language in future

Smudge_pot · 11-07-2013 01:11PM

Well, I for one am excited. Why? Well for the past few months I've been paid to write articles (often daily) about the royal family for an American celeb-gossip site. It's a long story as to how I've ended up with this little gig, but I actually enjoy it. It's funny, too, because although I've lived in the South for most of my life, all of my family are Northern Irish nationalists. Yet when they heard about what I'm doing, their reaction was mainly one of amusement (albeit slightly bewildered). So I for one think the royals are a source of healing power. There's bitterness in my family, as of course there would be for anyone who's lived through the Troubles, but the royals are in the end just celebrities - and shallow as it may be, the power of celebrity can unite us all

I Heart Internet · 11-07-2013 01:11PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

What about the so-called 'Royal babies' of Norway, Denmark and Belgium? Are they any way 'less Royal' given we don't talk about them?

They live further away from us and don't speak English

wretcheddomain · 11-07-2013 01:12PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

They live further away from us and don't speak English

They do speak English over there actually.

I Heart Internet · 11-07-2013 01:14PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

They do speak English over there actually.

Babies can't speak English

WilyCoyote · 11-07-2013 01:16PM

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

They could do with some fresh commoner genes to flush out centuries of inbreeding.

Ah Jasus, stop will you. Who would we have to laugh at then. Long live the Coburg-Saxe-Gothas.

bumper234 · 11-07-2013 01:17PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Honestly, who gives a flying s**t?

What about the so-called 'Royal babies' of Norway, Denmark and Belgium? Are they any way 'less Royal' given we don't talk about them?

Likewise, this is a non-event.

There's no such thing as Royal blood. Her baby is no more valuable than any other baby being born today. Inherited titles don't make the baby any more special.

But by discussing this, we're making the assumption that somehow her baby is in fact more important, thus there's only one thing left to do to solve this.

/thread

This will actually be a huge event in the UK and you will see a somewhat sense of national pride when the prince/princess is born. It's like the diamond jubilee recently. If you don't like people talking about this (it seems to make your blood boil a bit?) maybe this is not the thread for you?

wretcheddomain · 11-07-2013 01:21PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Babies can't speak English

Babies can't speak Dutch, Danish or Norwegian either.

bumper234 wrote: »

This will actually be a huge event in the UK and you will see a somewhat sense of national pride when the prince/princess is born. It's like the diamond jubilee recently. If you don't like people talking about this (it seems to make your blood boil a bit?) maybe this is not the thread for you?

The point of discussion boards is to air opinions out to dry even when you disagree.

So thanks for your suggestion but I'll continue to enter threads where I disagree with the initial exposition.

lertsnim · 11-07-2013 01:22PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

What would be an appropriate gift for Ireland to send?

Why would we send them anything? This crap belongs in the celebrity and showbiz forum.

Anyone · 11-07-2013 01:22PM

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

They could do with some fresh commoner genes to flush out centuries of inbreeding.

Didn't they try that with James Hewitt? As a result it launched the ginger gene into the pool.

I Heart Internet · 11-07-2013 01:22PM

lertsnim wrote: »

Why would we send them anything? This crap belongs in the celebrity and showbiz forum.

Because AH is too specialist and high-brow for this discussion?

gramar · 11-07-2013 01:25PM

Wait until Kate makes her first public appearance after the babby is born and the media will go ape****e about
how quickly she recovered her figure and how it likes like she was never pregnant in the first place. Sick of it already.

lertsnim · 11-07-2013 01:27PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Because AH is too specialist and high-brow for this discussion?

No, because there is a whole forum setup for this celebrity nonsense.

bumper234 · 11-07-2013 01:28PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Babies can't speak Dutch, Danish or Norwegian either.

The point of discussion boards is to air opinions out to dry even when you disagree.

So thanks for your suggestion but I'll continue to enter threads where I disagree with the initial exposition.

No problem with you entering threads where you disagree with the initial exposition.

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Honestly, who gives a flying s**t?

What about the so-called 'Royal babies' of Norway, Denmark and Belgium? Are they any way 'less Royal' given we don't talk about them?

Likewise, this is a non-event.

There's no such thing as Royal blood. Her baby is no more valuable than any other baby being born today. Inherited titles don't make the baby any more special.

But by discussing this, we're making the assumption that somehow her baby is in fact more important, thus there's only one thing left to do to solve this.

/thread

But maybe you shouldn't be claiming that the said thread that you wish to debate in should be closed while others are enjoying the debate:rolleyes:

Bannasidhe · 11-07-2013 01:28PM

bnt wrote: »

Even better than West Cork would be somewhere scenic, say Mullaghmore in County Sligo? A place with special resonance for the Royal Family, you might say ...

Note that the child's name is not necessarily the name he or she will take as monarch. If Charles becomes King, it won't be as King Charles III, for historical reasons. So while I think that Mary is unlikely, since it could be associated with Mary, Queen of Scots (who was executed on orders of Elizabeth I), it's not impossible. There was a Queen Mary before, but she was a queen consort, not in the line of succession.

First Regina Regnant (ruling queen) of England was Mary Tudor - she was a 'bit' bonkers tho... nonetheless she was Mary I.

Mary II was Mary Stuart, daughter of James II, who was married to William of Orange - they were joint monarchs - so she was Mary II.

Mary would fit the Tudor/Stuart/Orange theme as they have Elizabeth now - her heir is Charles - his heir is William and the back-up heir is Henry.

Victoria might be a possible contender too.

We could see something like Victoria Elizabeth Mary Catherine (or some version thereof) as so far the Windsors seem to be traditionalist when it comes to naming potential future monarchs.

If it's a boy George is a distinct possibility.

I Heart Internet · 11-07-2013 01:29PM

lertsnim wrote: »

No, because there is a whole forum setup for this celebrity nonsense.

Where's the forum for "Who listens to romantic music while masterbating." That's what I'd like to know.

Actually, no I don't. If we took all the random chat out of AH what would we be left with???

wretcheddomain · 11-07-2013 01:36PM

bumper234 wrote: »

No problem with you entering threads where you disagree with the initial exposition.

But maybe you shouldn't be claiming that the said thread that you wish to debate in should be closed while others are enjoying the debate:rolleyes:

No, because that was a tongue-in-cheek way to try and resolve the hysteria surrounding the British Royal family. The fact we talk about them as if they're something special is precisely the problem. Unfortunately, I have to enter such a thread to inform said participants that they are indirectly contributing to the abject prostration toward these overhyped celebrities.

RikkFlair · 11-07-2013 01:39PM

The Royals are all lizards and this infant will be no different. You'll see no photos of aforesaid infant lizard for weeks while they are applying the various airbrushing and cosmetics to make it appear human. I have the ****ers sussed out.

As for the name? Ignatius Reptilia Gorgonzola Triceratops Windsor.

I Heart Internet · 11-07-2013 01:40PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

No, because that was a tongue-in-cheek way to try and resolve the hysteria surrounding the British Royal family. The fact we talk about them as if they're something special is precisely the problem. Unfortunately, I have to enter such a thread to inform said participants that they are indirectly contributing to the abject prostration toward these overhyped celebrities.

Wow. Consider me informed.

Now, let's talk about that hat shall we?

wretcheddomain · 11-07-2013 01:42PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Wow. Consider me informed.

Now, let's talk about that hat shall we?

That's not a hat, it's an anus, on a arsehole.

wretcheddomain · 11-07-2013 01:42PM

RikkFlair wrote: »

The Royals are all lizards and this infant will be no different. You'll see no photos of aforesaid infant lizard for weeks while they are applying the various airbrushing and cosmetics to make it appear human. I have the ****ers sussed out.

As for the name? Ignatius Reptilia Gorgonzola Triceratops Windsor.

David Icke supporters are in the house.

c_man · 11-07-2013 01:44PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If it's a boy George

:eek:

bumper234 · 11-07-2013 01:45PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

No, because that was a tongue-in-cheek way to try and resolve the hysteria surrounding the British Royal family.

What hysteria are you on about because all i see are people talking (not hysterically) about the soon to be born prince/princess

wretcheddomain wrote: »

The fact we talk about them as if they're something special is precisely the problem. Unfortunately, I have to enter such a thread to inform said participants that they are indirectly contributing to the abject prostration toward these overhyped celebrities.

SOOOOOOO You feel that you HAVE to come into a thread that you don't like and that you HAVE to inform the good people of Ireland that you are right and they are wrong. Wow that comes across as narcissistic and petty but hey if that's what floats your boat then flame away at the silly participants, inform them about how you think they are contributing to overhyping celebrities.:rolleyes:

wretcheddomain · 11-07-2013 01:49PM

bumper234 wrote: »

What hysteria are you on about because all i see are people talking (not hysterically) about the soon to be born prince/princess

SOOOOOOO You feel that you HAVE to come into a thread that you don't like and that you HAVE to inform the good people of Ireland that you are right and they are wrong. Wow that comes across as narcissistic and petty but hey if that's what floats your boat then flame away at the silly participants, inform them about how you think they are contributing to overhyping celebrities.:rolleyes:

Thanks for your permission, makes it feel so much more right.

And yes, it is hysteria, mounting gradually toward the day that baby is shot out of her cannon.

WilyCoyote · 11-07-2013 01:51PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

First Regina Regnant (ruling queen) of England was Mary Tudor - she was a 'bit' bonkers tho... nonetheless she was Mary I. ........................................................................................
..........................................................................

If it's a boy George is a distinct possibility.

Called after "Karma Chameleon" Rodney.

bumper234 · 11-07-2013 01:58PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Thanks for your permission, makes it feel so much more right.

And yes, it is hysteria, mounting gradually toward the day that baby is shot out of her cannon.

Not my place to grant you anything. A suggestion if i may though? Maybe you should look up the word hysteria before throwing it about in accusations. I think you will realise that what you are actually seeing in the thread is mild interest by a few posters.

wretcheddomain · 11-07-2013 02:03PM

bumper234 wrote: »

Not my place to grant you anything. A suggestion if i may though? Maybe you should look up the word hysteria before throwing it about in accusations. I think you will realise that what you are actually seeing in the thread is mild interest by a few posters.

It is hysteria. People slowly mentioning it as a point of interest, this interest collectively mounting up until her cannon is shot. It may start off in a mild form but the process has begun and will only metastasise in the forthcoming days.

The UK Royal Baby is being born...

Comments