Names for Second Royal Baby

[freejoyannatoo]

There is a difference between consort and queen ? - Good question. I just looked it up. A consort is the spouse of the monarch. The idea originally was that she would be Princess Consort when Charles became king, but apparently the Queen now wants Camilla to be queen consort. We'll see!

So no, they don't have nice middle-class values. They believe they can have what they want when they want it, and if other people don't like it, that's too bad.

It's maybe because they have special power and privileges just because they are born from the good pussy... ?

- I couldn't have put it better myself :lol:

[BrownieMomma]

Forgive my ignorance but I find this part really interesting.

What is middle-class values and what is different about the royalty's values?

[JHeathen]

"I think the Duchess of Cambridge has an enormous amount of sway in all this and there are two things she is, by nature, not - 1. upper class. 2. a hipster."

I did not say SHE was hipster; I observed that the names Maude & Charlotte were on-trend and hipster. Here in the US, anyway. :D

[Seren Ann]

It's so refreshing to see people who aren't caught up in the blind royal worship that is so pervasive in the media today. I like to think that when you can show critical thinking towards families like the duggars, you can show critical thinking towards families like the Royals too. Nice to see this being confirmed :)

Plus I love discussing names. ^^' Though I wasn't in the least surprised by their choice of George, I wouldn't have guessed it before hand either... I am bad at predicting this stuff. For a girl I would say Charlotte or Victoria. For a boy, Alfred or Frederick maybe. Eh, what do I know. It will be fun to dissect their choice afterwards though :)

I loved Nameberry's take on the subject : http://nameberry.com/blog/royal-baby-names-round-2

(link not broken because I doubt they care)

As for the British public's opinion of the royals today... Well my grandparents absolutely worship them, they are definitely in awe of them and they love Charles and Camilla. My grandmother also completely idolises Kate. She 100% believes the fairy tale. When I expressed a differing opinion I was told I was just jealous and sour grapes.

My mother loved Diana back in the day. In fact the first time I remember seeing her cry is when the news of Diana's death broke. How the Royal family treated her definitely made my mother question their integrity, and now with time her opinion of them has become pretty bad. She is very cynical (like me) about their motivations and actions. I think the extravagance of William and Kate's wedding was really a wtf thing for both of us. In these difficult times, such an insensitive display of wealth was very jarring.

[treemom]

Camilla hate kind of makes some people :cray-cray: or at least have only a passing acquaintance with things like facts.

I have always seen Charles and Camilla as just as tragic as Diana. It isn't like Charles was allowed to marry who he actually loved the first time. And while yes, his infidelity was inappropriate I don't get the hatred. I feel like in general he was very respectful and so good to the boys after Diana died and they made choices like using Duchess of Cornwall to respect the public's feelings for Diana.

I am glad that he was able to one day marry for love.

[freejoyannatoo]

Forgive my ignorance but I find this part really interesting.

What is middle-class values and what is different about the royalty's values?

Royalty is part of the upper class in the UK, roughly defined as people who have titles. Traditionally they have been rich and privileged. What goes along with that is a certain feeling that they can do what they like.

The middle classes, which now comprise most of the population of the UK, is traditionally much more law-abiding and "moral". Of course there are some very rich and powerful members of the middle classes, but that doesn't make them upper class, which comes purely through lineage and breeding. I think this is something that's quite hard to explain to non-Brits - in the US, for example, I don't believe this really applies.

Here's an example. British kings have tended to have mistresses. This has gone back centuries and been accepted as normal. In the past the people were much more deferential to the crown and anyway didn't really know what they were up to most of the time.

So when Charles married Diana, he probably thought it was perfectly ok for him to have Camilla as his mistress. He was going to be king, after all, and that's just how these people behave. And although the Queen probably didn't want to know what was going on, she would have thought it was OK too.

Diana, however, had other ideas - and in this she was displaying middle-class values, despite being a member of the upper class herself. Most of the population of the country sided with her. Therefore Charles made himself thoroughly unpopular doing something he probably thought would be entirely acceptable. In this way, and many others, the royal family have shown themselves to be out of tune with public opinion in the last few decades.

Therefore, having Kate on board is a very good thing if they want to regain popularity. She didn't have a title before she married and is from a relatively ordinary background, though she did go to a private school. I can't see her putting up with William having a mistress (who really knows, though? But probably not). She can talk to people without seeming patronising, she shops for (some of) her clothes on the High Street, she actually looks after her baby herself quite a lot. This kind of thing.

Hope this helps :)

[treemom]

lol.

I really don't care about them one way or another. I am certainly neither a Camilla hater or a Diana lover. I would vote for the abolition of the monarchy in a heartbeat were it not for the fact that they are a major earner for Britain's tourist industry.

However. I live a few miles from Tetbury, where Highgrove is - Charles and Camilla's country house. I've been to Highgrove - it's ... interesting.

Local people work for them. They might occasionally let slip something. Of course it's not official, but it's real.

I've also spent time in Cornwall and talked to people who work on Charles' land there (basically, he owns Cornwall - very little of it is not Duchy property). They are - shall we say, unenthusiastic.

Anyway, it's good to know the Royal's publicity machine is so effective ;)

On another tack - my son is interested in the betting on the new baby's name - he made quite a bit on George last time. He tells me that most of the book makers are no longer giving odds on twins, and the two that still are, only offer evens. Interesting!

I have no strong feeling one way or the other because I am an American and try to refrain from having opinions about the make up of other governments unless they clearly have human rights types of issues. But, Charles was born a baby. He is a human being. Just like my son, and I do think it is ok to have compassion for the fact that royals have been denied things non royals never have been, including marrying who you love.

[BrownieMomma]

Yes, that was awesome freejoyannatoo. Thank you.

My cousins grew up in London, expats so ofc they didn't really "belong" but my girl cousin told me about Sloan Rangers.

I don't see that Kate could do much about it if William took a mistress. She could probably divorce him but I doubt she'd get custody of the kids. I'm sure her parents could still provide her a pretty decent life, as compared to the rest of the world, but she'd lose all the perks and privileges and it would be pretty hard to be grateful for "just" a decent standard of living when she'd had a royal standard.

[tabitha2]

Not sure if the Brits do it but other Royal families sign a prenup saying in the event of divorce the non royal consort automatically loses custody. Makes sense if you have an heir or heiress apparent that needs a certain constant upbringing to be prepared for the throne.

[Marianne]

I have no strong feeling one way or the other because I am an American and try to refrain from having opinions about the make up of other governments unless they clearly have human rights types of issues. But, Charles was born a baby. He is a human being. Just like my son, and I do think it is ok to have compassion for the fact that royals have been denied things non royals never have been, including marrying who you love.

Looking at Sofia and Leonora, the spanish princess, nearly bring tears in my eyes. Poor little lady. They will never know the taste of freedom. (except if there's a third republic... I always hope to see one day the true flag of Spain...)

[treemom]

Yes, that was awesome freejoyannatoo. Thank you.

My cousins grew up in London, expats so ofc they didn't really "belong" but my girl cousin told me about Sloan Rangers.

I don't see that Kate could do much about it if William took a mistress. She could probably divorce him but I doubt she'd get custody of the kids. I'm sure her parents could still provide her a pretty decent life, as compared to the rest of the world, but she'd lose all the perks and privileges and it would be pretty hard to be grateful for "just" a decent standard of living when she'd had a royal standard.

That isn't what has happened in other royal divorces. Again, I am so neutral on these people....but shared custody, living in the palace, etc. these things have occurred.

And that's a risk lots of us have in our marriages, where a divorce may change our economic status pretty easily. Of course their economic status change doesn't mean struggling for food but it does mean playing out in a very public way no matter how private they keep it.

Personally, I have always felt sad that human beings have to grow up that way with the pressure and the devotion and the hatred simply because they were born into it.

[Seren Ann]

I have no strong feeling one way or the other because I am an American and try to refrain from having opinions about the make up of other governments unless they clearly have human rights types of issues. But, Charles was born a baby. He is a human being. Just like my son, and I do think it is ok to have compassion for the fact that royals have been denied things non royals never have been, including marrying who you love.

See, I think he had a choice. After all, no law prevents him from marrying who he wants to. He wouldn't have been dragged to prison, kicking and screaming, because he'd married Camilla. Other royals have married for love, and in doing so lost their chance at the throne ; but it goes to show that marrying for love was not denied to them.

Charles chose to marry someone he didn't love because he wanted to retain certain privileges he was arbitrarily given at birth. He wanted to be king, and have a life of riches. I am afraid I absolutely can't feel sorry for him. He had a choice and he made it, and he lives with the consequences. Simple as that.

I still think cheating on your wife is despicable, and there is no excuse for that.

[tabitha2]

Like what Elizabeth's uncle did? Because that was just lovely for everyone involved :lol:

[treemom]

See, I think he had a choice. After all, no law prevents him from marrying who he wants to. He wouldn't have been dragged to prison, kicking and screaming, because he'd married Camilla. Other royals have married for love, and in doing so lost their chance at the throne ; but it goes to show that marrying for love was not denied to them.

Charles chose to marry someone he didn't love because he wanted to retain certain privileges he was arbitrarily given at birth. He wanted to be king, and have a life of riches. I am afraid I absolutely can't feel sorry for him. He had a choice and he made it, and he lives with the consequences. Simple as that.

I still think cheating on your wife is despicable.

I do not think any of us can speak to his motivations only his actions. We can speculate on his motivations. But it can't be done in a vaccum, we know that the abdication crisis of Edward for a woman was a big deal.

We can't pretend thy as a young adult who is next in line to the throne the pressure is not incredible.

And while his infidelity is appalling (as it is with everyone) Diana was not a saint. She had significant mental health issues, appeared by her own words to be combative and committed infidelity herself (you did it first is never an excuse)

I believe growing up in the royal family is more damaging that the privilege can fix.

[tabitha2]

What did happen was Phillip took Charles aside and told him he needed to shit or get off the pot.... Either marry Diana or let her go as Diana's rep would be ruined so he did. He may not have loved her completely but he did care for her and visa versa I think.

[Seren Ann]

Like what Elizabeth's uncle did? Because that was just lovely for everyone involved :lol:

Yeah, and marrying someone you don't really love while making her believe you do is just peachy too. I mean, it's not like things went down badly for Diana and her children, is it ?

And again, how does Diana not being a saint make the cheating somehow less bad ? No one is perfect. Just because I have issues with depression, anxiety and insecurity, would my boyfriend be justified in cheating on me ? I would rather he broke up with me if he can't deal with it, than cheat.

You might mistake me for someone who idolises Diana. I do not. She died when I was 5, much too young to have any awareness of celebrities and politics. I have no particular attachment to her and have no problem admitting that she had many issues. What Charles did still disgusts me, and there is still no excuse for it.

Never suggested that privilege can fix their issues, quite the contrary. I think they should realize the monarchy is completely outdated and aim for something less restrictive for themselves and more suited to our modern society. Privilege and unequality aren't values that democracies should be embracing today. "Because it's tradition" has been an excuse to continue many horrible or useless things, and I don't think it's enough reason to keep the monarchy when this country has been a democracy for so long now.

Maybe then the children being born into this family now will have a fighting chance at having freer lives with less pressure.

[treemom]

Yeah, and marrying someone you don't really love while making her believe you do is just peachy too. I mean, it's not like things went down badly for Diana and her children, is it ?

And again, how does Diana not being a saint make the cheating somehow less bad ? No one is perfect. Just because I have issues with depression, anxiety and insecurity, would my boyfriend be justified in cheating on me ? I would rather he broke up with me if he can't deal with it, than cheat.

You might mistake me for someone who idolises Diana. I do not. She died when I was 5, much too young to have any awareness of celebrities and politics. I have no particular attachment to her and have no problem admitting that she had many issues. What Charles did still disgusts me, and there is still no excuse for it.

Never suggested that privilege can fix their issues, quite the contrary. I think they should realize the monarchy is completely outdated and aim for something less restrictive for themselves and more suited to our modern society. Privilege and unequality aren't values that democracies should be embracing today. "Because it's tradition" has been an excuse to continue many horrible or useless things, and I don't think it's enough reason to keep the monarchy when this country has been a democracy for so long now.

Maybe then the children being born into this family now will have a fighting chance at having freer lives with less pressure.

Did I say it made it less bad? I feel like you have read a lot into what I said. You seem to have no compassion for the children born into these families. I do. That is the difference.

[Seren Ann]

Did I say it made it less bad? I feel like you have read a lot into what I said. You seem to have no compassion for the children born into these families. I do. That is the difference.

If you list Diana's sins next to the fact that he cheated yes it does sound like it's supposed to make it less bad. Now if that's not what you meant then that's fine, I misunderstood. It happens. But don't make it sound like I'm crazy because it was a very logical thing to think, given your wording.

Funny that you say I read too much into what you said... Then you go on to say I have no compassion for those children ? I never said such a thing and it couldn't be further from the truth. I have no compassion for the adults who happily perpetuate the situation. The innocent children born into those families, like George and his new sibling, I do have a lot of compassion for. Unless the monarchy changes a lot theirs will be a very strange life. As you said, lots of pressure, lots of media attention, and they will be very disconnected from normal life. It has to be difficult to grow up like that and find your way in life afterwards.

[treemom]

If you list Diana's sins next to the fact that he cheated yes it does sound like it's supposed to make it less bad. Now if that's not what you meant then that's fine, I misunderstood. It happens. But don't make it sound like I'm crazy because it was a very logical thing to think, given your wording.

Funny that you say I read too much into what you said... Then you go on to say I have no compassion for those children ? I never said such a thing and it couldn't be further from the truth. I have no compassion for the adults who happily perpetuate the situation. The innocent children born into those families, like George and his new sibling, I do have a lot of compassion for. Unless the monarchy changes a lot theirs will be a very strange life. As you said, lots of pressure, lots of media attention, and they will be very disconnected from normal life. It has to be difficult to grow up like that and find your way in life afterwards.

You showed zero compassion for Charles. I was referring to you saying how devastating Charles' decision was for Diana, and I believe Diana did things that were also damaging.

[treemom]

In other word, you said Charles was despicable. I was saying so was Diana, for the same reasons. And both had less control over their lives than I had over mine. And I was raised uneducated, with mentally ill parents, homeless and abused. And I believe that I had more freedom and opportunities to express that freedom than either Charles or Diana did. You seem to only see how as power and wealth grabbing, while ignoring every other influence. And for everyone who holds your opinion there will be another British citizen who feels that those born in direct line to the throne are obligated to ascend.

Hell this whole thread is about the fact they can't even choose their own name for their own damn baby. The obsession, the hatred, the pressure. And then people misbehave, just shocking.

[anjulibai]

Just want to +1 to everything treemom has said.

[Seren Ann]

I have no compassion for Charles, but he is not a child. Charles is an adult and as such, responsible for his actions. I see a double standard here : take Josh Duggar. He was raised in an incredibly restrictive environment (more so than Charles in my opinion but I realize that can be debated). Yet now on this board he is widely considered to be responsible for his actions and held accountable for his mistakes. The same attitude should hold true for Charles, I don't see why he is consistently given a free pass because he was in a restrictive environment. As adults we can break the circle, we can do better than we were raised. It's not easy, but it is a possibility.

And to be honest, although cheating as a revenge is wrong and worsens the situation, I think it is not as bad as being the first person to cheat and break the trust the other person had in you. After one spouse has cheated the trust is already broken, so while it remains a shitty thing to do, it is not so devastating, at least in my opinion. YMMV.

Diana for all her flaws went into the marriage with her clear intentions. Charles was hiding his affection for Camilla, and cheated first. Look I agree Diana did damaging stuff but I fail to see how the blame can be equally shared. Had he behaved decently the whole chain of events would not have been set into motion. Would she have been a perfect princess ? Probably not given her significant issues. Still he started the whole catastrophic chain of events. That can't be blamed on Diana.

This view that the adult Royals are powerless victims with no agency and absolutely no ability to make any decisions is surprising. I've never heard anything like this before, and I read up on them on various websites.

I hope you extend the same absolute compassion to the fundies you discuss, because in terms of rigid upbringing and strict world view, there are many parallels to be made between the two.

[BrownieMomma]

Compassion is not the right word. Compassion is about feeling pity for those who are suffering with misfortune. Do the royals suffer? Not by the standards by other people truly suffer, people who cannot feed themselves or their children, people without running water, people who cannot afford medical care, and on and on it goes.

The royals suffer because they lack privacy? Because their lives are scripted from infancy? Well, first off, boo frickin hoo. Sounds like a definite first world prob to me, maybe you could call it a royal world prob. I can't muster up a whole lot of sympathy for them.

Charles was "forced" to marry Diana because he screwed off and didn't marry Camilla when she was single? I guess that means Camilla was no Waity Katie. Sometimes things in life don't work out, exactly why didn't Charles marry Camilla way back when?

Charles and Camilla are sordid. They cheated on their spouses with each other. Maybe that is one of those royal morals whereby it is okay to them but the rest of us plebs don't like it or agree with it.

I can't believe we are expected to pity Prince Charles. Yeah maybe it isn't the funnest thing in life to be the lifelong King-in-Waiting but oh well. He's done plenty of cool things to keep himself amused and occupied.

Many people are affected for their entire lives for nothing more than who they were born to. It's just life.

[treemom]

Can you please stop putting words into my mouth like absolute compassion? At no point have I offered that, I offered compassion for being next in line to rule and being forced to choose between the pressure there and a woman he loves.

And yes, I do extend the same compassion to adults who have grown up with several generations of fundies...oh wait, most of those we discuss made this choice free and clear from pressure equitable that exists for the next in line for the throne when he was a young man.

But seriously, stop putting words in my mouth. Even when I made the compassion comment I said SEEM to me. If you feel my words mean that, then say that don't say I fucking said something I didn't.

Other words I didn't say "no agency" viability and pretty much everything you implied I said.

[treemom]

Compassion is not the right word. Compassion is about feeling pity for those who are suffering with misfortune. Do the royals suffer? Not by the standards by other people truly suffer, people who cannot feed themselves or their children, people without running water, people who cannot afford medical care, and on and on it goes.

The royals suffer because they lack privacy? Because their lives are scripted from infancy? Well, first off, boo frickin hoo. Sounds like a definite first world prob to me, maybe you could call it a royal world prob. I can't muster up a whole lot of sympathy for them.

Charles was "forced" to marry Diana because he screwed off and didn't marry Camilla when she was single? I guess that means Camilla was no Waity Katie. Sometimes things in life don't work out, exactly why didn't Charles marry Camilla way back when?

Charles and Camilla are sordid. They cheated on their spouses with each other. Maybe that is one of those royal morals whereby it is okay to them but the rest of us plebs don't like it or agree with it.

I can't believe we are expected to pity Prince Charles. Yeah maybe it isn't the funnest thing in life to be the lifelong King-in-Waiting but oh well. He's done plenty of cool things to keep himself amused and occupied.

Many people are affected for their entire lives for nothing more than who they were born to. It's just life.

For fucks sake, I didn't say that. In fact I never said anyone had to feel anything, I described my feelings and the reasons I have them.

If you missed my post where I described my childhood, you might get I very much understand that it is a first world problem. That doesn't mean it impacted there freedom more than me.

I am many things, many, many things....but unaware of the world and perspective is not one of them.

I was speaking in a narrow situation about how I perceive things and why I feel that Camilla and Charles are as tragic as Diana...in response to posts saying that Charles's son and daughter in law hate them basically.

Take a back from your overly dramatic response and actually read what I wrote and the extremely narrow situations I described and how I used the words "I feel" not "everyone must feel like this or they are a cruel horrible person"