Royal baby

Jul 22, 2013 16:20

While I'm very happy for Kate that she's safely delivered, I must admit that I was hoping for a little princess.  It would have been fun to have the first female to have a direct place in the British succession that couldn't be superseded by a subsequent male sibling.  Alas. Although I suppose, a lad is more accurate.

Leave a comment

Comments 5

(The comment has been removed)

angela_o July 23 2013, 02:47:57 UTC
I was hoping for a Charlotte myself. *sigh*

Boy names just aren't as much fun. Although I'm thinking James with Phillip, Louis, Arthur, or George tacked on in there somewhere. With Michael as an outside chance in a nod to Kate's dad as one of the multiple middle names.

Reply

muffinkath7 July 24 2013, 04:41:36 UTC
I'm almost positive it will be George. I'm not sure where this James is coming from...is that her brother? I forget. But the Hanovarian-Saxe-Coburg-Windsors took over from the Stuarts, the last of whom was a James who was kicked off the throne. Bad juju.No more abdications wanted!

I think Arthur as the first name would be awesome. There has never been a fully for-sure King Arthur. There were two possibilities in the past (one of Henry II's grandsons and Henry VIII's older brother - the one married to Katherine of Aragon), but they both died (or in the case of the former were thrown into prison and promptly murdered by good ol King John) before they could claim the throne.

Reply

angela_o July 24 2013, 14:22:43 UTC
James might actually be Prince Edward's son's name now that I think of it. I think Jamie is a cute name for a little boy.

I know that both George and Arthur have a strong tradition, I just find them unattractive names personally. I guess we'll find out soon.

Reply


muffinkath7 July 24 2013, 04:38:32 UTC
I was disappointed too! But they seem pretty happy with their little prince, so I will also be happy for them. : )

Reply

angela_o July 24 2013, 14:23:16 UTC
This is very true. They both look pretty glowing.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up