PDA

View Full Version : Royal Baby Watch - It's a BOY


Super Dave
Dec 3rd, 2012, 06:28 PM
Royal :baby: on the way.

London (CNN) -- Britain's Prince William and Catherine Middleton are expecting their first child after 19 months of marriage, the palace announced Monday.
The royal revelation came as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, was admitted to a central London hospital with acute morning sickness Monday afternoon. She is expected to be in King Edward VII Hospital for several days, the palace announcement said.


http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/world/europe/uk-royal-pregnancy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

KournikovaFan91
Dec 3rd, 2012, 07:01 PM
Can't wait for the media bombarding us with story after story about this.

People thought Jessica Simpson had a long pregnancy, they haven't seen anything yet.:rolleyes:

Helen Lawson
Dec 3rd, 2012, 10:20 PM
I hope their baby is as beautiful and wonderful as they are!

Super Dave
Jul 22nd, 2013, 05:11 PM
Kate is in labor :baby:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/22/world/europe/uk-royal-baby/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

wild.river
Jul 22nd, 2013, 06:34 PM
:woohoo:

very soon

NyCPsU
Jul 22nd, 2013, 06:43 PM
I got into an argument with my British friend this weekend about why Americans should care about this. I mean its fun and all, but some Americans get so into it. I just dont get it.

FORZA SARITA
Jul 22nd, 2013, 06:56 PM
^ it's the same everywhere don't worry :o

debopero
Jul 22nd, 2013, 06:57 PM
I got into an argument with my British friend this weekend about why Americans should care about this. I mean its fun and all, but some Americans get so into it. I just dont get it.

Cosign. The child will just be another person born into excessive privilege for no good reason.

Natalicious
Jul 22nd, 2013, 06:58 PM
^thats true, german/austrian media is also talking a lot about it

Super Dave
Jul 22nd, 2013, 07:09 PM
I got into an argument with my British friend this weekend about why Americans should care about this. I mean its fun and all, but some Americans get so into it. I just dont get it.

That's really it. I totally get why people don't care. It's just something to talk about.

I just hope it goes well and all are healthy.

njnetswill
Jul 22nd, 2013, 07:47 PM
I wish US media was like the Guardian and offered a "republican" setting to turn off all royal news. :o

*JR*
Jul 22nd, 2013, 08:11 PM
Can't wait for the media bombarding us with story after story about this.

Hey, this is the first (labour) the fucking Windsors have done in years. :devil:

Super Dave
Jul 22nd, 2013, 08:34 PM
Daughter just texted me and said it's a boy.

8 lbs. 6 oz.

Super Dave
Jul 22nd, 2013, 08:39 PM
Elizabeth Windsor ‏@Queen_UK (https://twitter.com/Queen_UK) 31s (https://twitter.com/Queen_UK/status/359396902371999745) Text from George Osborne: "It's a baby!" Absolute moron. #RoyalBaby (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23RoyalBaby&src=hash)
:p

Baby boy born at 4:24 pm local time.

hablo
Jul 22nd, 2013, 08:45 PM
I got into an argument with my British friend this weekend about why Americans should care about this. I mean its fun and all, but some Americans get so into it. I just dont get it.

It's getting tons of press in Canada as well. :o

wild.river
Jul 22nd, 2013, 08:46 PM
aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

how exciting. any name guesses? philip? george? james?

Cosmic Voices
Jul 22nd, 2013, 08:48 PM
I think 'George' will be a definite possibility, if not a middle name at least.
Edward, Charles.

Or they could just fuck with the world and call him Kevin

wild.river
Jul 22nd, 2013, 08:55 PM
I think 'George' will be a definite possibility, if not a middle name at least.
Edward, Charles.

Or they could just fuck with the world and call him Kevin

yeah, or sanjay

Natalicious
Jul 22nd, 2013, 09:00 PM
does anybody know when they will announce the name?

tennisboi
Jul 22nd, 2013, 09:17 PM
I was hoping for a girl just to even things up

I think it's a harsh being a royal in waiting they can't live like the rest of us so I am not jealous of the heirs

I hope Kate can give him as normal as a life as possible

Wiggly
Jul 22nd, 2013, 09:36 PM
It's getting tons of press in Canada as well. :o

Canadians have more reason to be "concerned' about the baby because we're part of the Commonwealth.
Still, I don't know anyone who cares about that baby.

The comments on CBC are borderline mean. :lol:

miffedmax
Jul 22nd, 2013, 09:55 PM
I think 'George' will be a definite possibility, if not a middle name at least.
Edward, Charles.

Or they could just fuck with the world and call him Kevin

How about Egbert II? Or Aethelstan II?

CillyUltra
Jul 22nd, 2013, 10:01 PM
The baby's arrived. :hearts: Germans love their Saxe-Coburg-Gothas. :worship:

Sisyphus
Jul 22nd, 2013, 10:19 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/1000723_10151733019177863_2062244640_n.jpg

Sean.
Jul 22nd, 2013, 11:36 PM
w_SfhbjQN8w

KournikovaFan91
Jul 22nd, 2013, 11:47 PM
I think it's a harsh being a royal in waiting they can't live like the rest of us so I am not jealous of the heirs


Quite a simple solution to that problem, its called Republicanism :o

eck
Jul 23rd, 2013, 12:06 AM
Kanye?

ElusiveChanteuse
Jul 23rd, 2013, 12:27 AM
:lol: but congrats!:cheer:

anyways, seriously, Kanye?:unsure:

jameshazza
Jul 23rd, 2013, 12:45 AM
clearly that is a joke.

Lord Choc Ice
Jul 23rd, 2013, 03:03 AM
If it has to be a typical royal name I'd go with Henry.

wild.river
Jul 23rd, 2013, 03:07 AM
i don't think he'll be named after his uncle..2 prince harry's might get confusing

Lord Choc Ice
Jul 23rd, 2013, 03:10 AM
i don't think he'll be named after his uncle..2 prince harry's might get confusing
Speaking of Prince Harry, I picture him as the one to pick a non-traditional royal name if he ever has any.

wild.river
Jul 23rd, 2013, 03:12 AM
Speaking of Prince Harry, I picture him as the one to pick a non-traditional royal name if he ever has any.

:lol: very true

*JR*
Jul 23rd, 2013, 03:49 AM
Speaking of Prince Harry, I picture him as the one to pick a non-traditional royal name if he ever has any.

http://www.centerfieldgate.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Prince-Fielder.jpg ;)

Morning Morgan
Jul 23rd, 2013, 04:56 AM
I think Edgar is a good choice.

ptkten
Jul 23rd, 2013, 05:17 AM
I think it's funny how much the American cable news shows cover this story. Entertainment shows I understand, but what relevance does it have to American politics what the baby's name is? :lol:

njnetswill
Jul 23rd, 2013, 06:01 AM
I think it's funny how much the American cable news shows cover this story. Entertainment shows I understand, but what relevance does it have to American politics what the baby's name is? :lol:

Too many loyalists in this country. Where are my tar and feathers? :armed:

duhcity
Jul 23rd, 2013, 10:56 AM
I think it's funny how much the American cable news shows cover this story. Entertainment shows I understand, but what relevance does it have to American politics what the baby's name is? :lol:

Not enough celebrities in America

Thiudans
Jul 23rd, 2013, 05:22 PM
Yay! Let's all be vapid and stupid and celebrate the birth of SOMEONE ELSE'S baby. Because you're related to them, right? Wait... no? They're not your cousins, or borthers or sisters? Friends...? No? Hmmm... Ok then. At the very least, I have no doubt that you all have some personal stake in this child's/family's business.

Odd.

wild.river
Jul 23rd, 2013, 05:30 PM
Yay! Let's all be vapid and stupid and celebrate the birth of SOMEONE ELSE'S baby. Because you're related to them, right? Wait... no? They're not your cousins, or borthers or sisters? Friends...? No? Hmmm... Ok then. At the very least, I have no doubt that you all have some personal stake in this child's/family's business.

Odd.

Yay! Let's all be vapid and stupid and celebrate SOMEONE ELSE'S Grand Slam Win. Because you're related to them, right? Wait... no? They're not your cousins, or borthers or sisters? Friends...? No? Hmmm... Ok then. At the very least, I have no doubt that you all have some personal stake in this person.

Odd

;)

*JR*
Jul 23rd, 2013, 06:40 PM
Yay! Let's all be vapid and stupid and celebrate SOMEONE ELSE'S Grand Slam Win. Because you're related to them, right? Wait... no? They're not your cousins, or borthers or sisters? Friends...? No? Hmmm... Ok then. At the very least, I have no doubt that you all have some personal stake in this person.

Odd

;)

Its not the same thing. A Slam winner became an elite tennis player, and then had to win 7 straight matches against others in the same elite. Whereas all William (Duke of Somewhere-or-other) had to do was be the offspring of a particular father, who was the offspring of a particular mother, and so on. :shrug:

wild.river
Jul 23rd, 2013, 06:45 PM
Its not the same thing. A Slam winner became an elite tennis player, and then had to win 7 straight matches against others in the same elite. Whereas all William (Duke of Somewhere-or-other) had to do was be the offspring of a particular father, who was the offspring of a particular mother, and so on. :shrug:

no, it's not the same. one person hits a ball back and forth with a stick and the other will be the ruler (though symbolic) of 15(?) countries around the world. one has more bearing on our lives than the other. but obsessing over both is a form of mindless entertainment.
also, elite tennis players, though hard-working, don't come from the slums of the world either.
but like i said, it's just entertainment. except for the weirdos who'll name their kids after the royal baby...feel free to judge them.

Sarindipity
Jul 23rd, 2013, 06:49 PM
Would have been funny if the baby turned out to be asian or black. How's that for a crisis.

debopero
Jul 23rd, 2013, 06:54 PM
no, it's not the same. one person hits a ball back and forth with a stick and the other will be the ruler (though symbolic) of 15(?) countries around the world. one has more bearing on our lives than the other. but obsessing over both is a form of mindless entertainment.
also, elite tennis players, though hard-working, don't come from the slums of the world either.
but like i said, it's just entertainment. except for the weirdos who'll name their kids after the royal baby...feel free to judge them.

The key word is symbolic. Do the monarchs of England really have a say over what happens anywhere in the Commonwealth?

wild.river
Jul 23rd, 2013, 07:05 PM
The key word is symbolic. Do the monarchs of England really have a say over what happens anywhere in the Commonwealth?

no. except i get to look at the queen's lovely face every time i pull out any coins or a $20. (in canada)

Edward.
Jul 23rd, 2013, 07:57 PM
I'm a Royalist, but the media attention for the birth of this child has been absurd and near about intolerable here in the UK.

And Wills and Kate, pleaseeee do not name the child Edward. I know its a contender. :bigcry:

wild.river
Jul 23rd, 2013, 08:02 PM
I'm a Royalist, but the media attention for the birth of this child has been absurd and near about intolerable here in the UK.

And Wills and Kate, pleaseeee do not name the child Edward. I know its a contender. :bigcry:

omg :lol: i'll have to start calling you prince edward if that happens.

Sisyphus
Jul 23rd, 2013, 08:03 PM
It looks so deformed.

Edward.
Jul 23rd, 2013, 08:07 PM
omg :lol: i'll have to start calling you prince edward if that happens.

:bigcry:

We do already have a Prince Edward (The Queens third son) so hopefully they will be dissuaded from using my name for that reason. :lol: She might use it as a middle name though.

*JR*
Jul 23rd, 2013, 08:42 PM
The key word is symbolic. Do the monarchs of England really have a say over what happens anywhere in the Commonwealth?

Only indirectly; like when the fucking Governor General of Australia ousted (good Socialist) Gough Whitlam as Prime Minister in 1975. :fiery:

Anyhow, I respect the willingness of various so-called "Royals" to serve in combat zones (most recently Harry in Afghanistan) whether I agree with the mission or not.

But the Disney Corporation could run that glorified theme park called Buckingham Palace without paying hereditary heirs billions. :o

And for the monarch to read a speech opening Parliament that was written 100% by the party in power is a joke. (Its like QE2 went from being an old-style Labourite under Callaghan to a rightwinger a year later, when Thatcher took ova).

alfonsojose
Jul 23rd, 2013, 08:55 PM
How was the baby delivered?

Povin
Jul 23rd, 2013, 09:01 PM
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1011904/thumbs/o-KATE-MIDDLETON-PRINCE-WILLIAM-BABY-570.jpg?6

The blond guy looks like Bruno

Edward.
Jul 23rd, 2013, 09:36 PM
How was the baby delivered?

Natural birth.

Halardfan
Jul 23rd, 2013, 09:38 PM
Only indirectly; like when the fucking Governor General of Australia ousted (good Socialist) Gough Whitlam as Prime Minister in 1975. :fiery:

Anyhow, I respect the willingness of various so-called "Royals" to serve in combat zones (most recently Harry in Afghanistan) whether I agree with the mission or not.

But the Disney Corporation could run that glorified theme park called Buckingham Palace without paying hereditary heirs billions. :o

And for the monarch to read a speech opening Parliament that was written 100% by the party in power is a joke. (Its like QE2 went from being an old-style Labourite under Callaghan to a rightwinger a year later, when Thatcher took ova).

Glad mum and baby are ok. Dislike the fawning coverage in some quarters. But best of luck to them.

Thatcher and Queen Liz 2 were said to have had a tetchy relationship, with Thatcher bemoaning the Queen's generally centrist, pro commonwealth opinions. The Queen's favourite Prime Minister is also said to be Labour Prime minister Harold Wilson.

I would very much like Britain to become a Republic, but its impossible to see that happening even in the long term because people generally like Royalty. Maybe when the less popular and more divisive Charles takes over things will change, but then the super popular William will take over later.

The best we can hope for are certain steps and nods to modernity to continue to be taken (like the equality between male and female heirs which we have recently seen). But of course these can only sweeten the pill a little of what is an inherently unfair institution.

Wiggly
Jul 23rd, 2013, 09:57 PM
William said something like "that's the first time we've seen him".
Did he meant since the birth or since the "conception"?

Kind of weird if you don't see your healthy baby for 24 hours after the birth.

Edward.
Jul 23rd, 2013, 10:19 PM
Glad mum and baby are ok. Dislike the fawning coverage in some quarters. But best of luck to them.

Thatcher and Queen Liz 2 were said to have had a tetchy relationship, with Thatcher bemoaning the Queen's generally centrist, pro commonwealth opinions. The Queen's favourite Prime Minister is also said to be Labour Prime minister Harold Wilson.

I would very much like Britain to become a Republic, but its impossible to see that happening even in the long term because people generally like Royalty. Maybe when the less popular and more divisive Charles takes over things will change, but then the super popular William will take over later.

The best we can hope for are certain steps and nods to modernity to continue to be taken (like the equality between male and female heirs which we have recently seen). But of course these can only sweeten the pill a little of what is an inherently unfair institution.

You do know that if this country was a republic we'd have President Cameron? Probably with his face on all our banknotes.

If the thought of that doesn't turn you off the idea of a republic and make you want to vomit, something is seriously wrong.

Halardfan
Jul 23rd, 2013, 10:52 PM
You do know that if this country was a republic we'd have President Cameron? Probably with his face on all our banknotes.

If the thought of that doesn't turn you off the idea of a republic and make you want to vomit, something is seriously wrong.

Any British citizen should have the potential opportunity to hold the highest position in the land, it shouldn't be based on accident of birth.

That doesn't mean I'd want the money dominated American system, actually the Irish system might be a better model.

Edward.
Jul 23rd, 2013, 11:23 PM
Any British citizen should have the potential opportunity to hold the highest position in the land, it shouldn't be based on accident of birth.

That doesn't mean I'd want the money dominated American system, actually the Irish system might be a better model.

It's the highest position yes, technically. But in reality what does that even mean in our country? The Queen has no real power of her own. Parliament has full authority over legislation. The Queen just signs whatever comes her way.

I'd far rather have a Head of State with limited powers who signs bills at the behest of their Government than an all powerful President doing whatever they like or a heavily restricted President who is constantly hampered by a gridlocked Parliament (like the USA).

I honestly believe we have the best system in the world. Of course, we have problems with our Press and Lobbyists but our actual system is, in my mind, as good as it gets. Things get done, yet there are enough checks and balances in place to stop an overly radical Prime Minister ramming through anything he wants.

Halardfan
Jul 23rd, 2013, 11:53 PM
It's the highest position yes, technically. But in reality what does that even mean in our country? The Queen has no real power of her own. Parliament has full authority over legislation. The Queen just signs whatever comes her way.

I'd far rather have a Head of State with limited powers who signs bills at the behest of their Government than an all powerful President doing whatever they like or a heavily restricted President who is constantly hampered by a gridlocked Parliament (like the USA).

I honestly believe we have the best system in the world. Of course, we have problems with our Press and Lobbyists but our actual system is, in my mind, as good as it gets. Things get done, yet there are enough checks and balances in place to stop an overly radical Prime Minister ramming through anything he wants.

The Queen has done a good job, but Charles is a different matter. His constant letters to government ministers cross the line.

We could have a symbolic figure with the same role as the Queen who is nonetheless elected.

Edward.
Jul 24th, 2013, 12:05 AM
The Queen has done a good job, but Charles is a different matter. His constant letters to government ministers cross the line.

We could have a symbolic figure with the same role as the Queen who is nonetheless elected.

Yes, I dislike his government lobbying and he must be forced to quit it before he takes the throne.

I really am not that bothered about electing a figurehead. Cabinet Ministers are far more powerful than backbenchers and are elected in the same way, yet we have no say in who ends up in a Cabinet. (One suspects Jeremy Hunt and George Osbourne would never have made it in there if we did....)

I do love Labour's idea of borrowing the USA's primary system to have a say in choosing candidates. A brilliant, wholly democratic idea if there ever was one.

Halardfan
Jul 24th, 2013, 12:25 AM
Yes, I dislike his government lobbying and he must be forced to quit it before he takes the throne.

I really am not that bothered about electing a figurehead. Cabinet Ministers are far more powerful than backbenchers and are elected in the same way, yet we have no say in who ends up in a Cabinet. (One suspects Jeremy Hunt and George Osbourne would never have made it in there if we did....)

I do love Labour's idea of borrowing the USA's primary system to have a say in choosing candidates. A brilliant, wholly democratic idea if there ever was one.

Money is the great problem in Politics, with the Union link being broken to the Labour Party it's essential that large donations to any politcal party be banned. Again the money dominated American system is warning of what can go wrong.

In regards to Royalty in the end they are here to stay whether I like it or not. So just we have to hope that future monarchs do as steady a job as the Queen has done.

Tennisation
Jul 24th, 2013, 12:53 AM
The baby's already having receding hairline :tape:

*JR*
Jul 24th, 2013, 12:54 AM
You do know that if this country was a republic we'd have President Cameron? Probably with his face on all our banknotes.

Obviously you'd have long dead PM's etc. on the banknotes (like Gladstone, Disraeli, Churchill, and Attlee). Maybe also a Montgomery, a Wellington, and a Drake.


Any British citizen should have the potential opportunity to hold the highest position in the land, it shouldn't be based on accident of birth.

Now that your adopted country has its strongest PM after Sunday's upper house election since Kakuei Tanaka 40 years ago, let's see if the Emperor can check Mr. Abe. :p

Sean.
Jul 24th, 2013, 01:28 AM
Prince William's heir is falling out! :oh:

Edward.
Jul 24th, 2013, 07:45 AM
Obviously you'd have long dead PM's etc. on the banknotes (like Gladstone, Disraeli, Churchill, and Attlee). Maybe also a Montgomery, a Wellington, and a Drake.



JR, you badly underestimate just how arrogant and self-obsessed Cameron is. :lol:

Londoner
Jul 24th, 2013, 09:00 AM
JR, you badly underestimate just how arrogant and self-obsessed Cameron is. :lol:

We'd also have had statues of Blair and Brown all over the place!;)

Skinz
Jul 24th, 2013, 09:06 AM
He has more hair than i do! ;)

Well said Will, well said!

Londoner
Jul 24th, 2013, 09:07 AM
I am not a Royalist, but would only vote for a Republic if a President and his/her Government was limited to no more than 2 terms. I am also not a revolutionary in that I have no desire to see the Family bumped off! I have a feeling William would love nothing more than to live the life of a wealthy private individual. I certainly wouldn't want what he's facing.

While it's nice to see a happy (apparently) young couple have a healthy baby, the media coverage is disgusting. Constant repetition, making crap up as they go along, brain washing. And the BBC is every bit as bad as the rest.

A simple announcement and one pic would have sufficed. As for the nutters who stood outside the hospital and Buckingham Palace, what did they expect? The baby to be dangle out of window?

Sarindipity
Jul 24th, 2013, 09:35 AM
According to calculations a presidency is more expensive than a monarchy. In the Netherlands alone it would cost about 100 million more iirc. I should try to find the article which discussed it.

azdaja
Jul 24th, 2013, 10:20 AM
looking at what people are saying about republics i wonder if they are aware how a republic functions? limits to number of consecutive presidential terms you can have exist in most of them, even in parliamentary republics where president is just a symbolic figurehead much like a monarch in a constitutional monarchy, only much cheaper. most european countries are parliamentary republics, accross the pond you have presidential republics. if britain were to switch to a republican step the only way would be to a parliamentary republic which means your prime ministers would have the same role as now, they wouldn't be like bush or obama. in fact, in parliamentary republics presidents are so irrelevant people often forget who is currently the president of their own country.

According to calculations a presidency is more expensive than a monarchy. In the Netherlands alone it would cost about 100 million more iirc. I should try to find the article which discussed it.
i highly doubt this is true. it certainly can't be true of a presidency in a parliamentary republic which is just like a constitutional monarchy where the monarch is replaced by a much cheaper president.

Sarindipity
Jul 24th, 2013, 10:36 AM
looking at what people are saying about republics i wonder if they are aware how a republic functions? limits to number of consecutive presidential terms you can have exist in most of them, even in parliamentary republics where president is just a symbolic figurehead much like a monarch in a constitutional monarchy, only much cheaper. most european countries are parliamentary republics, accross the pond you have presidential republics. if britain were to switch to a republican step the only way would be to a parliamentary republic which means your prime ministers would have the same role as now, they wouldn't be like bush or obama. in fact, in parliamentary republics presidents are so irrelevant people often forget who is currently the president of their own country.


i highly doubt this is true. it certainly can't be true of a presidency in a parliamentary republic which is just like a constitutional monarchy where the monarch is replaced by a much cheaper president.

The dutch monarchy is the most expensive in Europe costing around 31-33 million pounds. The french presidency costs almost 90 million pounds.

Londoner
Jul 24th, 2013, 10:45 AM
looking at what people are saying about republics i wonder if they are aware how a republic functions? limits to number of consecutive presidential terms you can have exist in most of them, even in parliamentary republics where president is just a symbolic figurehead much like a monarch in a constitutional monarchy, only much cheaper. most european countries are parliamentary republics, accross the pond you have presidential republics. if britain were to switch to a republican step the only way would be to a parliamentary republic which means your prime ministers would have the same role as now, they wouldn't be like bush or obama. in fact, in parliamentary republics presidents are so irrelevant people often forget who is currently the president of their own country.


i highly doubt this is true. it certainly can't be true of a presidency in a parliamentary republic which is just like a constitutional monarchy where the monarch is replaced by a much cheaper president.

Well you're right in that I know very little about Presidencies because I doubt there will be one in Britain in my lifetime! What I would like to see is no Monarchy and no separate Prime Minister/President. Simply a Government elected as now by an election with that Government's leader as the Head Of State, limited to a maximum of 2 terms. In effect for Britain it would be as it is now only no monarchy! But I'll dream on!

Londoner
Jul 24th, 2013, 10:47 AM
The dutch monarchy is the most expensive in Europe costing around 31-33 million pounds. The french presidency costs almost 90 million pounds.

I'm amazed the Dutch monarchy is more expensive than Britain's. But there you go!

Some people say that monarchies bring in tourists, but most people I know who visit The Netherlands don't go on the off chance of seeing the King and previously the Queen! They tend to go for other, more raucous reasons!

azdaja
Jul 24th, 2013, 11:10 AM
The dutch monarchy is the most expensive in Europe costing around 31-33 million pounds. The french presidency costs almost 90 million pounds.
that's assuming the costs are calculated correctly. kinda like the number of unemployed people is cheated in the statistics.

figures given here (http://www.republic.org.uk/valueformoneymyth.pdf) tell a different story. granted, that's a republican website.

here (http://www.euronews.com/tag/european-monarchies/) you can see figures per capita based on the official totals (meaning those 36 million or so).

the french presidency is the most expensive in europe and certainly useful as a statistic if you want to make monarchies look good. however, france is not a praliamentary republic. if you look at the figures given under the first link i gave you presidents of germany (21 million), finland (11.5 million), austria (3.5 million) and ireland (1.8) cost much less. so, just comparing official figures most presidencies are cheaper.

Well you're right in that I know very little about Presidencies because I doubt there will be one in Britain in my lifetime! What I would like to see is no Monarchy and no separate Prime Minister/President. Simply a Government elected as now by an election with that Government's leader as the Head Of State, limited to a maximum of 2 terms. In effect for Britain it would be as it is now only no monarchy! But I'll dream on!
that would be a huge change, though. it would be a step towards the american model of presidential republic. i think switching to a parliamentary democracy would be more efficient for all european monarchies. most european countries already have that model in place anyway and all it takes is to replace monarchs by elected presidents.

Super Dave
Jul 24th, 2013, 01:53 PM
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1011904/thumbs/o-KATE-MIDDLETON-PRINCE-WILLIAM-BABY-570.jpg?6



:spit: :help: :tape:

*JR*
Jul 24th, 2013, 02:34 PM
Thatcher and Queen Liz 2 were said to have had a tetchy relationship, with Thatcher bemoaning the Queen's generally centrist, pro commonwealth opinions. The Queen's favourite Prime Minister is also said to be Labour Prime minister Harold Wilson.

Which only reinforces the point, as it means that for ova a decade, Queen Lizzy was reading a speech every year that she'd then have thought was rubbish.


JR, you badly underestimate just how arrogant and self-obsessed Cameron is. :lol:

It wouldn't likely be up to a PM (or even the Chancellor of the Exchequer) but to the head of the Bank of England.

BTW, economic trailblazers Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes might also be enshrined on banknotes and coins.

Also your most prominent early 19th Century abolitionist (William Wilberforce). No serving PM would even consider it.... :secret: until Boris Johnson gets the job.

Edward.
Jul 24th, 2013, 03:09 PM
We'd also have had statues of Blair and Brown all over the place!;)

Urgh, don't want to think it...and as for Thatcher, the woman was so vain and self-obsessed she'd have probably named a whole city after herself...probably an old coal mining town, being the vindictive witch she was.

Edward.
Jul 24th, 2013, 03:25 PM
looking at what people are saying about republics i wonder if they are aware how a republic functions? limits to number of consecutive presidential terms you can have exist in most of them, even in parliamentary republics where president is just a symbolic figurehead much like a monarch in a constitutional monarchy, only much cheaper. most european countries are parliamentary republics, accross the pond you have presidential republics. if britain were to switch to a republican step the only way would be to a parliamentary republic which means your prime ministers would have the same role as now, they wouldn't be like bush or obama. in fact, in parliamentary republics presidents are so irrelevant people often forget who is currently the president of their own country.


i highly doubt this is true. it certainly can't be true of a presidency in a parliamentary republic which is just like a constitutional monarchy where the monarch is replaced by a much cheaper president.

Fair points well made. I have always felt uncomfortable conferring too much power on a single individual. I far prefer our system where responsibility is conferred on numerous individuals. The Prime Minister is very powerful, sure, but he is not as powerful as his party. Cameron has been defeated quite a few times during this parliament because he couldn't get the rest of his party to back his proposals.

Another thing I like about our system is that it is possible to override the Prime Minister and get bills passed by the Opposition. Private Member Bills can be introduced by any MP from any party and as long as they can get it to the floor for a debate, it can be voted on. If an individual can peel off enough votes from MP's of other parties they can get their bills passed. This happened with the death penalty in the UK IIRC. The bill abolishing the death penalty was introduced by a Labour MP during a Conservative Parliament and it was voted on and passed, even without the backing of Anthony Eden.

With regards to cost...the monarchy cost the UK 6p per person last year. Considering the amount of money they bring to the UK from tourism, and the high standing they have across the world, that is peanuts.

$uricate
Jul 24th, 2013, 04:11 PM
Woman of childbearing age gives birth to child.

:eek:

Has this EVER happened before?

Cosmic Voices
Jul 24th, 2013, 06:26 PM
I think 'George' will be a definite possibility, if not a middle name at least.
Edward, Charles.

Or they could just fuck with the world and call him Kevin

@TheSunNewspaper 5m
BREAKING NEWS: Kate and Wills have named their son George Alexander Louis

told you :oh:

Sean.
Jul 24th, 2013, 07:39 PM
They called him George! :o

Super Dave
Jul 24th, 2013, 07:53 PM
Some people wanted him named Kong :oh:

matthias
Jul 24th, 2013, 09:08 PM
George?

very boring

Sean.
Jul 24th, 2013, 09:10 PM
Should have called him 'Key'. :p

Sarindipity
Jul 24th, 2013, 09:14 PM
Royals alway givng their kids old fashioned names. How about naming him Brooklyn. George is such a stupid name they could ahve at least named him james.

Halardfan
Jul 24th, 2013, 11:16 PM
Which only reinforces the point, as it means that for ova a decade, Queen Lizzy was reading a speech every year that she'd then have thought was rubbish.


It wouldn't likely be up to a PM (or even the Chancellor of the Exchequer) but to the head of the Bank of England.

BTW, economic trailblazers Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes might also be enshrined on banknotes and coins.

Also your most prominent early 19th Century abolitionist (William Wilberforce). No serving PM would even consider it.... :secret: until Boris Johnson gets the job.

Many and various great British figures have long since featured on our bank notes, they do so for a few years then make way for another...Jane Austen has recently been announced for a future 10 note for example.

Lord Choc Ice
Jul 25th, 2013, 07:05 AM
George is a cute name for a baby. It's also an appropriate name for an old man. Any-time between that I don't think it's a good name :lol:.

Edward.
Jul 25th, 2013, 07:11 AM
Terrible name. A certain smug Chancellor will be feeling very pleased with himself.

Londoner
Jul 25th, 2013, 09:23 AM
Be great if he turned out to be a transsexual who says he was trapped in a male body. Under UK law he could get a sex change under the NHS, become Queen and marry a bloke. And under the law there aint nothing anyone could do!

$uricate
Jul 25th, 2013, 09:51 AM
"Woman names child in child-naming saga"

Should be the headline.

Probably will be in the British press..

Lord Choc Ice
Jul 25th, 2013, 10:19 AM
TBH the coverage of the royal birth hasn't bothered me. It's happy news at least. Almost everyone I know is sick of hearing about it, but better that than more murder or child abuse stories.

ElusiveChanteuse
Jul 25th, 2013, 01:19 PM
George is a cute name for a baby. It's also an appropriate name for an old man. Any-time between that I don't think it's a good name :lol:.

To me, sounds like an old man's name indeed.:o

Anyhow, welcome to the world, His royal highness Prince George Alexander Louis - Prince of Cambridge.:worship: