The Royal Baby Is Here! It's a BOY!

[HoneyBunny]

The last Prince George (King George VI was Prince Albert) was the Duke of Kent, Queen Elizabeth's uncle. He was quite good looking and purportedly bisexual. He was supposedly the long-time lover of Noel Coward.

Very Valentino-esque.

rrrrwwwwwwrrrrrr! Nice!

My feelings on all this (not that anyone asked):

William and Catherine are one cool young couple and George will be one loved child. Sure, the name's a little funky to those of us in the US, but it's been popular in the UK for years. While George for a three year old doesn't roll off the tongue, King George sounds perfect.

Charles and Camilla are one cool old couple. Queen Camilla all the way.

I am already missing the dynamic duo that Elizabeth and Phillip were in their heyday. There are some sad years ahead for all of us to whom they've been a rock of loyalty and duty. Seeing a widowed queen will be heartbreaking.

Diana was a bitch, and, despite what so many say, she was NOT a good mother. Good mothers don't make their oldest son their sounding board, dragging him into the middle of a bad marriage. They don't put their personal business out for the world to see on a TV interview (selfish and narcissitic much?). She was on a path of self destruction long before she encountered a drunk driver in Paris.

Those were some rough years for the monarchy, and I think between C and C, and W and C, it's in good hands for the next several decades.

[WonderingInWA]

rrrrwwwwwwrrrrrr! Nice!

My feelings on all this (not that anyone asked):

William and Catherine are one cool young couple and George will be one loved child. Sure, the name's a little funky to those of us in the US, but it's been popular in the UK for years. While George for a three year old doesn't roll off the tongue, King George sounds perfect.

Charles and Camilla are one cool old couple. Queen Camilla all the way.

I am already missing the dynamic duo that Elizabeth and Phillip were in their heyday. There are some sad years ahead for all of us to whom they've been a rock of loyalty and duty. Seeing a widowed queen will be heartbreaking.

Diana was a bitch, and, despite what so many say, she was NOT a good mother. Good mothers don't make their oldest son their sounding board, dragging him into the middle of a bad marriage. They don't put their personal business out for the world to see on a TV interview (selfish and narcissitic much?). She was on a path of self destruction long before she encountered a drunk driver in Paris.

Those were some rough years for the monarchy, and I think between C and C, and W and C, it's in good hands for the next several decades.

Wow. Are you a mother? Because I have two boys and I talk about my feelings a lot with them -- the good, bad, and the ugly. Because that's part of teaching them how to be compassionate. Diana was in a very difficult situation from the very beginning and found solace in the relationships she had with her children. I too, have BTDT, with a divorce (not nearly as public, but public enough). And if your children observe you being sad, you have to give them some sort of explanation. Her Panorama interview (which is the one I believe you are probably referring to) took place the year she died, IIRC. The boys probably didn't see it then, and I think she just wanted the world to know that the royal family is full of lots of PR. She didn't understand PR when she first came into the spotlight, but she definitely did by then. And it was a survival tactic for her as long as she lived. She would never have died the way she did if she'd been more supported by the royal family. Probably.

[Artemis]

The Parker-Bowles woman will never be Queen. At most she's likely to be Princess Consort. And a lot of people won't watch Charles', or her, coronation. He's not that popular, with his constant meddling and pontificating.

As for Diana being a bitch - can't everyone be a bitch? But the Diana I met, nine years into a disastrous marriage was a gently-spoken, sad-eyed young woman who lit up when you asked after her children, and closed down politely when you hoped that her husband was recovering well from his broken elbow. She giggled like a schoolgirl in a stuck lift, and came across as neither publicity seeking, narcissistic or ostentatious. Just quite ordinary, and very vulnerable.

She was a twenty-year old virgin, from a broken home and dysfunctional family, who married a man who had failed to persuade the woman he fancied - Parker-Bowles - to take on the duties of being married to the heir to the throne, but who could neither forget that woman, or have the decency to stay completely out of contact with her, so that he could concentrate 100% on the woman he was, you know, married to. Neither could the woman who didn't have the guts to take him on in the first place - she did actually refuse to marry him, you know - stay out of his marriage.

Diana was used like a brood mare to bear the heir and the spare, and doubtless had she borne two girls, she would have been knocked up again and again until she produced a boy. Camilla's great grandmother, Alice Keppel was the mistress of Edward VII. (Mind you, who wasn't - he really put it about, old Teddy.) His wife, poor Alexandra, shut up and put up. Ninety years later, Diana wasn't prepared to ,and no more should she have done. I'm pretty sure Parker Bowles thought she could have her cake and eat it, as her great-grandmother had - she with a complaisant husband, and he with an uncomplaining wife.

Unfortunately, he was wrong, and she, Charles, and Diana's own innate insecurities destroyed her.

No, Diana was not guiltless, and she did some very silly things. But, given the previous circumstances, no Queen Camilla for quite lot of us in the UK, thanks. People have long memories.

[WonderingInWA]

The Parker-Bowles woman will never be Queen. At most she's likely to be Princess Consort. And a lot of people won't watch Charles', or her, coronation. He's not that popular, with his constant meddling and pontificating.

As for Diana being a bitch - can't everyone be a bitch? But the Diana I met, nine years into a disastrous marriage was a gently-spoken, sad-eyed young woman who lit up when you asked after her children, and closed down politely when you hoped that her husband was recovering well from his broken elbow. She giggled like a schoolgirl in a stuck lift, and came across as neither publicity seeking, narcissistic or ostentatious. Just quite ordinary, and very vulnerable.

She was a twenty-year old virgin, from a broken home and dysfunctional family, who married a man who had failed to persuade the woman he fancied - Parker-Bowles - to take on the duties of being married to the heir to the throne, but who could neither forget that woman, or have the decency to stay completely out of contact with her, so that he could concentrate 100% on the woman he was, you know, married to. Neither could the woman who didn't have the guts to take him on in the first place - she did actually refuse to marry him, you know - stay out of his marriage.

Diana was used like a brood mare to bear the heir and the spare, and doubtless had she borne two girls, she would have been knocked up again and again until she produced a boy. Camilla's great grandmother, Alice Keppel was the mistress of Edward VII. (Mind you, who wasn't - he really put it about, old Teddy.) His wife, poor Alexandra, shut up and put up. Ninety years later, Diana wasn't prepared to ,and no more should she have done. I'm pretty sure Parker Bowles thought she could have her cake and eat it, as her great-grandmother had - she with a complaisant husband, and he with an uncomplaining wife.

Unfortunately, he was wrong, and she, Charles, and Diana's own innate insecurities destroyed her.

No, Diana was not guiltless, and she did some very silly things. But, given the previous circumstances, no Queen Camilla for quite lot of us in the UK, thanks. People have long memories.

Thank you for this, Artemis.

[Justme]

There is no way Charlie will ever give up that throne!!

I hope Liz does live another 10-20 years. It will give Will & Kate time to live a more quiet family life. When Charlie does become King, Will's will be the Prince of Wales and more attention will be on him and his family. He'll also have more "royal duties".

[tabitha2]

Diana did not ever really raise her boys so she can't actually take much credit for the way they turned out. From the time they were born they had a whole nursery suite and nannies and then at 8 they were at boarding school most of the year. While not having her affairs,Diana had them on holidays and got good press out of the boys but she was never a full time mother so I preserve my praise for bestest mother ever to someone who does the nitty gritty stuff.

Also, one only needs to look up what she tried to pull with Tiggy Legg Bourke to see the other side of your angel Diana.

[HOTW]

My nephew's name is George an dI have never thought it was a stuffy name. it is a family name that has been in the family for well over 300 names-kinda sucks when you're trying to chase the older geneology since there were so many george's and Thomas' and William's.

As for Camilla, the media treated her horribly int he 70's when they were dating(also more than a few women he was dating) and he did date Diana's sister Sarah but dumped her when it was obvious she had an eating disorder(too bad they didn't remember that when he paired up with Diana. Half the reason he married her was because of media pressure and family pressure to marry. I think he was one who could have benefitted by looking further afield in the intellectual community when it came to looking for a spouse.

He won't abdicate it is not looked upon well due to the debacle of his great Uncle David. He is actually quite an intelligent man and I have found his reasoning are very sound. He is very aware of many issues and quite often has been just a little too ahead of his time for the media to swallow. They preferred pretty and planked in th ehead....

[Artemis]

I didn't say she was an angel - I don't make hyperbolic statements. Also, no one is an angel, Tabitha, not even you. Nor did I say she was the 'best' mother. In fact I distinctly said that she was extremely flawed. She was a woman in the public eye, and a damaged woman, the subject of much erroneous, hostile, adulatory and distorting publicity. Obviously opinions about her are going to differ.

Furthermore, I am not an advocate for, nor have ever indulged in, the adulation of royalty. My anger at the time about the way Diana was treated was exactly the anger I feel about any wretched young woman subverted from herself by the patriarchy, taught to seek her validation in male eyes, and treated as an ambulatory womb to further the patriarchy's ends.

However, just because she was wrong at times, that does not make the 'other side' right. And they weren't. The whole establishment admitted that.

Neither you nor I saw 'how she raised the boys'. I spoke firstly from my personal knowledge of what I saw in her face when she talked to me about the boys, (which was a very tender and deep love, as most mothers have for their children), and secondly from what was admitted, and proved to be said, in public, by both partners in the marriage. She may not have been the 'bestest' mother. Possibly, she wasn't the wisest mother. But she was clearly a loving mother, within her capacities, and to the best of her desire to do well, which, as mothers, is probably the only epitaph most of us can hope for from our children.

I'm really not interested in arguing about this. I spoke about what I saw, and what was proved knowledge. If you have a problem with the late Diana, Princess of Wales, it's your problem. Far be it from me to attempt to change your, or anyone's, opinion - which I was, in fact, neither interested in doing, nor trying to do.

Incidentally, are you from the UK?

[OkToBeTakei]

I tend to think they were all victims personally.

Charles of his upbringing. Circumstance. Time. Pressures that John ordinary does not have.

Bad decisions. Youth. Establishment. Taken separately you can vilify or sympathise with each.

Diana was just easier cast in the victim role for many. I think she is no more a victim of the patriarchy than Charles was, loosely thinking. That's a bit too much of an easy out as every royal in history and in the future is expected to produce an heir. Baby George included. Most not all females want children as Diana herself did and often said, does that make us all victims? Granted her circumstance was vastly different but hers will not be the first or last marriage which did not work out who had well loved children. Bearing in mind it was she herself who said she was 'cast aside' after producing an heir and spare.

Those very early candid documentaries showed both Charles and Diana as really happy besotted parents. Just a shame it did not last.

Those boys are a credit to both their parents really. It just is not popular to say so.

[singsingsing]

The truth is that none of us know exactly what went down between Charles, Diana, and the rest of the family, because we're not them. I mean, if anyone on this board happens to be a member of the British royal family or the Spencer family, feel free to correct me. But otherwise it's hard to say one party was bad and the other good. From an outsiders perspective, it seems like no one involved was perfect, and it was an unfortunate situation between two people who never should have been married, which had a tragic end.

It does surprise me that some people have such strong (vehement!) opinions either way. Charles, Diana, and Camilla are strangers. I base my opinion of them on the limited exposure they get through the media, and then I take it all with a grain of salt. Sadly it is way too easy to martyr or vilify these people.

[laura oz]

I did not know.

+1 I had no idea. I just saw the way the media portrayed her, and thought she was a great humanitarian. I was 19 and not to interested in anything but me at the time :embarrassed:

ETA She should have just let them take the damn picture. She was a public figure and it was a damn shame to die over that.

[JenniferJuniper]

I found Diana tiresome and the frenzied orgasmic grief over her sad early demise utterly sickening.

[louisa05]

I found Diana tiresome and the frenzied orgasmic grief over her sad early demise utterly sickening.

I think she was a well-meaning but emotionally unstable person who had great charisma.

I also think the mess of that marriage was the fault of a large group of people and Camilla was only one of them and in many ways not the most influential. It was Prince Phillip who told Charles that he either had to propose to the girl or break it off quickly, not Camilla. And it was the Queen who made it clear to him years before that he would not be allowed to marry Camilla, leading to her marrying someone else while he was serving in the military. His parents are, quite frankly, first in line to be blamed. Then you have the Spencer family who very much wanted a daughter to be queen, any daughter, didn't matter which one. In many many ways, it would seem Diana was the most unstable of their three candidates; but she was the most beautiful and the most naive and her older sister had already failed to get him.

I think the cult of Diana-worshipers do not serve her memory well and also put her sons in an awkward position in regard to her memory. And, also, they are downright creepy.

[HoneyBunny]

We could argue the Charles v. Diana- who was most at fault thing for years. In fact, some have, on another board called The Royal Forums. And I've found there is no changing anyone's mind on this note.

But I have to correct one misconception above: the Panorama TV interview was filmed and aired while C&D were still married, D knew it would be so upsetting to W that she went to his school the day it aired to talk with him about it, and, supposedly, he was indeed furious about it. But I feel confident that she ended their session with another "Who loves you most?" (what kind of mother says THAT?).

As for meeting D and finding her loving and down to earth and funny and all the things that are said about her, I can't help but think of all the people she'd cut out of her life by the end. It seems her only way of handling conflict was to cut someone out, quit speaking to them, becoming cold and distant. Let's face it- if that's one person's fall back anytime conflict arises, a marriage to them is doomed. I do think she was largely at fault in the downfall of that marriage. She was unstable as hell, and those that continue to sing her praises just won't recognize it. She was not responsible for how young she was when she was caught up in all this, and that definitely affected her actions, but she could have seriously used all the counseling help available to her to recognize her actions were harmful to herself, her children, her husband and the monarchy, which is her son's future. A better mother would have.

[louisa05]

We could argue the Charles v. Diana- who was most at fault thing for years. In fact, some have, on another board called The Royal Forums. And I've found there is no changing anyone's mind on this note.

But I have to correct one misconception above: the Panorama TV interview was filmed and aired while C&D were still married, D knew it would be so upsetting to W that she went to his school the day it aired to talk with him about it, and, supposedly, he was indeed furious about it. But I feel confident that she ended their session with another "Who loves you most?" (what kind of mother says THAT?).

As for meeting D and finding her loving and down to earth and funny and all the things that are said about her, I can't help but think of all the people she'd cut out of her life by the end. It seems her only way of handling conflict was to cut someone out, quit speaking to them, becoming cold and distant. Let's face it- if that's one person's fall back anytime conflict arises, a marriage to them is doomed. I do think she was largely at fault in the downfall of that marriage. She was unstable as hell, and those that continue to sing her praises just won't recognize it. She was not responsible for how young she was when she was caught up in all this, and that definitely affected her actions, but she could have seriously used all the counseling help available to her to recognize her actions were harmful to herself, her children, her husband and the monarchy, which is her son's future. A better mother would have.

She also knew when she gave those interviews--both on television and to Andrew Morton --that anything she said about the senior royals (Elizabeth, Phillip, the Queen Mother) would go officially unchallenged. Protocol was and always has been that they do not give interviews and do not talk about the family's personal lives. And she certainly used that to her advantage to paint herself as a victim.

She also reportedly dragged her children into her battle with their paternal family. A good parent does not do that. And, as you say, in this very unique family, it served William even more badly.

I can't help but think that were she alive at 51, we would have seen her celebrity fade and like so many others she would have succumbed to too much Botox and too many desperate actions to stay on the front pages. Things would be very different. And her sons would not have millions of people around the world trying to hold their lives and families hostage to her sainted memory.

[fakepigtails73]

To be honest it's been a long time since her death and I'd like to read a Diana biography but I just can't find one that is objective. It seems they are either of the "poor Saint Diana! She was a victim of the Windsors!!", even of the conspiracy- minded "Diana and Dodi were murdered on Prince Phil's orders by MI6 because she was pregnant and the royal family would have never let a future king with a muslim step-father" or on the other side you have the "Diana was a scheming harlot who tried to turn her sons against their father, no one misses her" types of bios...I'm exagerating a bit. So I don't know which bio on her to read more than 15 yrs after her death.

A year or so after her passing it was the death of JFK Jr that had the medias enthranced...

Don't get me started on Mother Theresa. She's part of the XXth century's "people in the news" that I loathe the most. Read Hitch's "The Missionnary Position" (love the title!) for more. :disgust:

The Sisters of Charity clinic she opened in Calcutta was a major pigsty, according to visiting medical personnel from Doctors Without Borders, who I'm certain have seen many clinics and dispensaries in the Third World. They mentionned that it was the most unsanitary place they'd ever seen at that point

When, of all people, Pope John Paul II (whom she was very close to) tells you to stop hogging the cameras, to clean your Calcutta "clinic" pronto and to have the working nuns over there to better clean the syringes I guess it means that your so-called charity is dubious.

She also:

- Converted and baptized in Catholicism many Hindus and Buddhists on their deathbeds in her clinics when they were at death's door, too weak to protest. That practiced was rumoured to have stopped in the mid-80's, but who knows?? :think:

- Refuse to have her staff give anti-pain medications to patients in terrible pain, justifying it by saying "suffering brings us closer to God".

- Treats the young nuns and sisters in her order like crap. It is one of the "sisters orders" (don't know the right word in english) that women that want to enter the noviciates are told to avoid postulating for by a major diocese near my residence...

- As mentionned by another poster upthread her friendship with dictators like Duvalier and Pinochet...And, this one was less known, she was on good terms with Enver Hoxha, the communist dictator that kept her native Albania isolated from the world ala North Korea for years. He proclaimed Albania to be an official atheist nation, all the while being on friendly terms with Mother Theresa.

- Many people in Calcutta and in India were angry at the way she portrayed Calcutta in her fundraising documentaries and in interviews, as if it was the world's biggest slum. Granted there are many poor areas but it is said that Calcutta has a vibrant cultural scene, some nice areas to visit...We'd never know about it though.

I could go on. I love dropping buckets of water on her, :twisted: I feel like she deserved it.

[OkToBeTakei]

Royal Forums? :lol:

Remind me not to go there!

I suppose like all famous stories there is always fascination and opinion.

Why centuries ago we would be called the 'the chattering masses' :lol:

[JenniferJuniper]

Royal Forums? :lol:

Why centuries ago we would be called the 'the chattering masses' :lol:

Isn't that a perfect phrase for us though?

[OkToBeTakei]

Absolutely! Times may change. Human nature not so much :)

[Genk]

Diana did not ever really raise her boys so she can't actually take much credit for the way they turned out. From the time they were born they had a whole nursery suite and nannies and then at 8 they were at boarding school most of the year. While not having her affairs,Diana had them on holidays and got good press out of the boys but she was never a full time mother so I preserve my praise for bestest mother ever to someone who does the nitty gritty stuff.

Also, one only needs to look up what she tried to pull with Tiggy Legg Bourke to see the other side of your angel Diana.

My husband went to boarding school when he was 8 and still feels as if his parents raised him. He says that the time spent on breaks with his parents made up for a lot. However, there is no way I will let our kid go to boarding School.

[Mama Mia]

I think she was a well-meaning but emotionally unstable person who had great charisma.

I also think the mess of that marriage was the fault of a large group of people and Camilla was only one of them and in many ways not the most influential. It was Prince Phillip who told Charles that he either had to propose to the girl or break it off quickly, not Camilla. And it was the Queen who made it clear to him years before that he would not be allowed to marry Camilla, leading to her marrying someone else while he was serving in the military. His parents are, quite frankly, first in line to be blamed. Then you have the Spencer family who very much wanted a daughter to be queen, any daughter, didn't matter which one. In many many ways, it would seem Diana was the most unstable of their three candidates; but she was the most beautiful and the most naive and her older sister had already failed to get him.

I think the cult of Diana-worshipers do not serve her memory well and also put her sons in an awkward position in regard to her memory. And, also, they are downright creepy.

Whatever the reasons he did not initially marry Camilla they both had the responsibility to stay the hell away from each other once they married others. Period. You have 0 chance of having a good marriage if you are spending all your time mooning over someone else and using that person as your confidante for every issue that comes up with your spouse. It doesn't matter whether you are a prince or a plumber. That is a set up that is made for misery.

[theologygeek]

I'm really not interested in arguing about this. I spoke about what I saw, and what was proved knowledge. If you have a problem with the late Diana, Princess of Wales, it's your problem. Far be it from me to attempt to change your, or anyone's, opinion - which I was, in fact, neither interested in doing, nor trying to do.

Incidentally, are you from the UK?

I am loving reading your posts about Diana, and also WonderinginWA's posts. I am from the US and followed everything Diana did. I loved her and was very upset when she died.

[tabitha2]

I am from the US and think Diana was an emotionally troubled and ultimately manipulative person who played the victim to a tee-both with and without cause.

[HOTW]

We could argue the Charles v. Diana- who was most at fault thing for years. In fact, some have, on another board called The Royal Forums. And I've found there is no changing anyone's mind on this note.

But I have to correct one misconception above: the Panorama TV interview was filmed and aired while C&D were still married, D knew it would be so upsetting to W that she went to his school the day it aired to talk with him about it, and, supposedly, he was indeed furious about it. But I feel confident that she ended their session with another "Who loves you most?" (what kind of mother says THAT?).

As for meeting D and finding her loving and down to earth and funny and all the things that are said about her, I can't help but think of all the people she'd cut out of her life by the end. It seems her only way of handling conflict was to cut someone out, quit speaking to them, becoming cold and distant. Let's face it- if that's one person's fall back anytime conflict arises, a marriage to them is doomed. I do think she was largely at fault in the downfall of that marriage. She was unstable as hell, and those that continue to sing her praises just won't recognize it. She was not responsible for how young she was when she was caught up in all this, and that definitely affected her actions, but she could have seriously used all the counseling help available to her to recognize her actions were harmful to herself, her children, her husband and the monarchy, which is her son's future. A better mother would have.

I think the interview was a way of forcing the Royal Family's hand or she was going to be in limbo forever as a separated woman. Once that interview came out it became apparent that a Divorce was necessary. Both of them committed Adultery the main issue is no one knows who committed it first....

[latraviata]

Whatever the reasons he did not initially marry Camilla they both had the responsibility to stay the hell away from each other once they married others. Period. You have 0 chance of having a good marriage if you are spending all your time mooning over someone else and using that person as your confidante for every issue that comes up with your spouse. It doesn't matter whether you are a prince or a plumber. That is a set up that is made for misery.

Unfortunately it was not uncommon in those circles to marry for the purpose of producing an heir and a spare and having a mistress.