The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3061  
Old 07-27-2013, 06:21 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
So your close to being her greatest fan but you don't believe her? Makes no sense to me at all.

Their aides have said they chose the names because they liked them - I believe that.
Well, then, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Aides and palaces say all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, mostly understandable ones. Actually, I have not heard the Duchess say that she preferred George to Alexander - I do, however, recall William's saying that they were still 'working on' the name. My opinion is that they lost the toss. If so, what else could the aides and spokespersons say?
__________________

__________________
  #3062  
Old 07-27-2013, 06:26 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly View Post
Well, then, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Aides and palaces say all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, mostly understandable ones. Actually, I have not heard the Duchess say that she preferred George to Alexander - I do, however, recall William's saying that they were still 'working on' the name. My opinion is that they lost the toss. If so, what else could the aides and spokespersons say?
The Duchess hasn't said anything about her preference for names, as far as I can recall (other than palace saying that they chose the names because they like them). You may dislike the name George, but that doesn't mean that William and Kate do.
__________________

__________________
  #3063  
Old 07-27-2013, 06:41 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
Oh, how grating it is to refer to any human being (especially one with so many admirable qualities) as "expendable." I understand why it is said, but it is very grating to the ear.
__________________
  #3064  
Old 07-27-2013, 06:54 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I didn't see Harry as a major royal at any time - he was the spare and thus expendable and even more so now. He was the extra - not needed for the line to continue and even less needed now.

Had he been the heir to the heir he would have had the full Music Room treatment - without any question but he didn't because he was the extra one and by the time of his birth his parents' marriage had clearly ended.

The Music Room isn't exclusively used by the heirs but the heirs, since WWII have all been done there while lesser royals have been done anywhere that is convenient at the time.
The heirs since WWII? So two people?

I think you're making more out of a tradition than there actually is. Having actually looked through to see where various royal children have been born since the birth of Queen Victoria's eldest, I can say that there doesn't seem to be any preference for one room over any other, be they heir or otherwise, although it does seem like there is a trend for the heir to be baptized somewhere in BP.
__________________
  #3065  
Old 07-27-2013, 06:57 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I didn't see Harry as a major royal at any time - he was the spare and thus expendable and even more so now. He was the extra - not needed for the line to continue and even less needed now.

Had he been the heir to the heir he would have had the full Music Room treatment - without any question but he didn't because he was the extra one and by the time of his birth his parents' marriage had clearly ended.

The Music Room isn't exclusively used by the heirs but the heirs, since WWII have all been done there while lesser royals have been done anywhere that is convenient at the time.
Harsh description and bearing in mind the royal history of the "first born", not particularly accurate. Just a few monarchs who were not expected to reign

Elizabeth II
George VI
George V
Victoria
William IV
Charles I
Elizabeth I
Mary I
Henry VII
Henry I
John

etc.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
  #3066  
Old 07-27-2013, 07:07 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
Yes, I seriously am not seeing how William didn't also become "expendable" when Harry was born - either of them could now fulfill the task.

No one knows who is going to live to bear a crown.

Good list, cepe (and that's just in England). Richard the Lionheart should be on the list too (his brother Harry was the eldest and everyone expected him to rule).
__________________
  #3067  
Old 07-27-2013, 07:25 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Alamos, United States
Posts: 1,034
History has made obvious what Cepe says, and others, that the firstborn has not always become monarch. Perhaps, with "modern" medicine, there are fewer early deaths, so an heir has more chance of living long and not needing his "spare" to take over. But look just at the case (not royal but ducal) of Prince William of Gloucester dying at 30 in an air crash, so that his brother became duke when Prince Henry died shortly after that. Some people have supposed that Prince William of Gloucester had a death wish when he crashed, but I have a feeling that is not true. He was intelligent and creative and had a plan for being with his "true love", even though protocol had discouraged it up to that point. In other words, he had plans for the future.
But no, a horrible accident ended that.
William is also a pilot. Probably takes fewer chances and has fewer mechanical glitches than his namesake. But still, if you fly, you take a chance. If you drive, you take a chance. If you breathe the same air as a crowd, you take a chance.
__________________
  #3068  
Old 07-27-2013, 08:17 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,039
Really good point, cepe.


Since William I, there have been 27 monarchs of England/Great Britain/the UK who were not intended at birth to come to the throne, and only 16 who were. In Scotland, between David I (after which inheritance followed primogeniture more or less) and James VI (after which the throne merged with England) it's more even - 9 expected heirs and 9 unexpected ones.

The point still stands though that in some ways Harry - and other spares - has been viewed as more expendable and as such has been given more freedoms. William would never be allowed to go to Afghanistan, but Harry has been. The same happened between Charles and Andrew, Edward VII and George VI (and even more with the younger brothers). During the reign of George III there was no push for the younger sons (or the daughters) to marry and have legitimate children while the Prince of Wales had a daughter.
__________________
  #3069  
Old 07-27-2013, 08:40 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polly View Post
However, I do not believe that George was the parents' choice. Personally, I dislike George for the little prince because of the historical negative royal baggage attached to the name.
Every royal name has some negative historical baggage. It's impossible to find any that don't.
Little George will create his own history.
__________________
  #3070  
Old 07-27-2013, 08:48 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,374
Harry was the 2nd child and so not such a big deal if he died while William was alive. As William now has a child Harry is even less important - just as Andrew ceased to be important when William was born and Margaret was less important once Charles was born. History makes that quite clear as well - Harry wasn't even as high in the line of succession that Andrew and Margaret were before him as they were both 2nd at one point while he was only ever 3rd. Even the government and family see him as expendable as like Andrew and George VI before him with older brothers he was allowed to see active service in a war zone while the older brothers weren't allowed to do so - Queen Victorial allowed her younger sons to have real military service but not her heir as the heir was to be protected while the younger sons were expendable - sad yes but not needed over time. George too is way more important to the family than his younger siblings will be - that doesn't mean that the younger siblings aren't loved or wouldn't be missed just that they aren't as important in the broad scheme of things.

Of course illness has seen younger brothers succeed in the past but that is less likely to happen now as childhood deaths are much rarer and even deaths due to accidents are also dropping e.g. the death toll from car accidents is actually lower now, in real terms, than it was when William was born.
__________________
  #3071  
Old 07-27-2013, 09:00 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 737
I can't see why George is name Kate and William wouldn't have liked. It was the name Williams Great Grandfather reigned under and we don't know maybe someone in Kate's family or circle of friends is called George or she just likes the name. Names aren't for everyone I like George I even have a cockatiel and her name is George (we thought she was a he until she laid an egg). I think Harry is an important member of the family his father will be King and then his brother. He has had to live his life a certain way and if he wasn't important he could off gotten away with a lot more. He is doing Royal Duties so he is more important then Beatrice and Eugenie and he will do more and more as time progresses. And if something happened to William and George, Harry could be King. You never know what is in the future.
__________________
  #3072  
Old 07-27-2013, 11:04 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
Every royal name has some negative historical baggage. It's impossible to find any that don't.
Little George will create his own history.
Few bear the odure of the Georges - here's English poet, Walter Savage Landor's famous and much-quoted lines (written when Victoria was Queen)

George the First was always reckoned
Vile, but viler George the Second;
And what mortal ever heard
Any good of George the Third?
When from earth the Fourth descended
(God be praised!) the Georges ended.

I will agree that, despite the justified criticisms of the truly woeful Georges, George V, albeit a stern parent and a strict disciplinarian, was a successful king: he's the first monarch who ever showed that he cared more for his subjects than he did for the status quo, himself, the aristocracy, or ingrained, establishment government. Many of the so-called 'upper classes' never forgave him (and some still don't to this day) for his obvious partiality for doing the right thing by ' the people', as he saw it. Given his role in helping to dismantle the inherited power of the House of Lords (capitulating to 'the herd' it was called by some) people everywhere should celebrate his commitment to and understanding of the real meaning of Kingship. Hopefully, Baby Cambridge will have something of the steel grit his great-great-great-grandfather, but then, he's only but one of the baby's 32 antecedents.

Still, a new prince for a still new century remains a cause for celebration, whatever his name. It is not, however, contingent on me to like it, nor to refrain from so saying, particularly in a forum where the majority do, and say so.

Vive la diffèrence, I suggest.
__________________
  #3073  
Old 07-27-2013, 11:52 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,440
I suggest, it is their child and it is their choice. And, although, I didn't like the name, as I say Prince George, it has a mellow and sweet sound. So, good luck, little one.
__________________
  #3074  
Old 07-28-2013, 12:11 AM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.
__________________
  #3075  
Old 07-28-2013, 05:22 AM
kathia_sophia's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South, Portugal
Posts: 1,677
I dislike the name George, but it's William and Catherine's son, not mine. Why wouldn't they like the name? I doubt any parent would name a son/daughter with a name they don't like, that's absurd, I'm sure they liked it and adding the history and traditional fact related to the name would even make their choice even more solid and final.
__________________
♫A man is not old until regrets take the place of dreams.♥
  #3076  
Old 07-28-2013, 09:49 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.
You know what Anne of Green Gables said about that?

I don't believe a rose would smell as sweet, if it was called a cabbage!

__________________
  #3077  
Old 07-28-2013, 02:22 PM
HRHHermione's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 1,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post

You know what Anne of Green Gables said about that?

I don't believe a rose would smell as sweet, if it was called a cabbage!

I thought of that quote myself when I read the earlier post :)
__________________
  #3078  
Old 07-28-2013, 03:49 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,276
Elizabeth and Philip named their son Charles and that has a horrible history as well. Diana and Charles named their second son Henry and Henry 8.0 ruined that name all by himself. The last king William had a bunch of out of wedlock children and was a drunk. Any traditional royal name they chose was going to have a bad history. George V and VI alone make it an honorable name, but I also think George III was a man to be admired despite his illness.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
  #3079  
Old 07-28-2013, 04:11 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
Elizabeth and Philip named their son Charles and that has a horrible history as well. Diana and Charles named their second son Henry and Henry 8.0 ruined that name all by himself. The last king William had a bunch of out of wedlock children and was a drunk. Any traditional royal name they chose was going to have a bad history. George V and VI alone make it an honorable name, but I also think George III was a man to be admired despite his illness.
None of them were all bad. Henry VIII created and developed the British Navy, which enabled Elizabeth I and Drake to defeat the Armada, and Nelson to defeat the French - all important to the British history.

IT's easy for all of us to see history with today's views, morality, and opinions plus the advantage of seeing what happened as a result of the decisions made. Hence the trend of rewriting and apologising.

It's seeing it as they did, with their imperatives which makes history interesting and something to learn from.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
  #3080  
Old 07-28-2013, 04:35 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,276
Well if none of them were all bad then the George's were saints and there is no reason not to name a son George.
__________________

__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HRH Duke Carlos Javier (1970- ) and the Royal House of Bourbon-Parma: August 2010- Warren Royal Families of Italy 207 06-22-2014 05:08 PM
Potential Names and Godparents for Zara Phillips Tindall and Mike Tindall First Child Zonk The Princess Royal and Family 110 06-05-2014 04:47 AM
Baby Cambridge: Musings and Suggestions Zonk The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Family 3615 07-22-2013 02:30 AM
Possible names and godparents for Joachim & Marie's baby principessa Prince Joachim and Princess Marie and Family 390 07-26-2009 11:56 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman picture of the month poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:25 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]