- #31
jackmell
- 1,806
- 54
Integral said:
Yes Integral, I agree. She is very much royalty. A diamond. I'm glad we got that straighten-out.
Are you ready for a next-in-line future Queen or King to be born?
- Context: News
- Thread starter StevieTNZ
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Future
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the birth of a royal baby, specifically the child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and the implications of royal succession laws. Participants express a range of opinions about the significance of the event, the media coverage surrounding it, and the traditions associated with royalty.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Meta-discussion
- Conceptual clarification
Main Points Raised
- Some participants note the confirmation of the Duchess of Cambridge going into labor and the subsequent birth of a boy, while others express indifference towards the royal family and the event.
- There is discussion about changes in succession laws that allow the firstborn to become ruler, with questions raised about whether spouse naming conventions have also changed.
- Some participants speculate on whether the royal couple took measures to influence the sex of the baby, while others argue that such measures are unlikely given the couple's choice to remain unaware of the baby's sex before birth.
- Concerns are raised about the media's focus on the royal birth, with some participants criticizing the tendency for news outlets to report on the lack of developments rather than substantive news.
- Participants express differing views on the relevance of the royal birth to the general public, with some arguing that it affects British citizens and Commonwealth countries, while others dismiss its significance.
- There are comments reflecting on the nature of royalty and privilege, with some participants questioning the relevance of royal lineage in modern society.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants generally do not agree on the significance of the royal birth, with multiple competing views expressed regarding its relevance and the media coverage it receives. The discussion remains unresolved with differing opinions on the implications of the event.
Contextual Notes
Some participants reference ongoing legislative changes related to royal succession, indicating a potential impact on future royal births, but the specifics of these changes and their implications remain unclear.
Yes Integral, I agree. She is very much royalty. A diamond. I'm glad we got that straighten-out.
- #32
Tosh5457
- 130
- 28
I don't know why there are still royal families in Europe honestly... Don't people realize they got rich mostly by taxing the people? I'm not even communist, but in the case of royal families it's true that they exploited the peoples of their countries. Sure they led the countries also, but that's not an excuse to live in luxury while people struggled to live by. Monarchies times are over, why even give importance to those people...
- #33
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,829
- 11,305
Agreed. They are honoring/celebrating the descendants of their ancestors' oppressors.
- #34
256bits
Gold Member
- 4,213
- 2,221
Tosh5457 said:
Ohoh - an anti-monarchist in the midst
Off topic of the baby, but royalty or a monarchist from of government does not equate to exploitive, and conversely other forms of government do not mean non-exploitive. There are bad apples in every group, including democracy.
Its entertainment and the gawk factor. The US has Hollywood, then there is Bollywood, Middle East has all that history along with Greece, Italy and all that neighborhood, Australia has the down under fascination, Canada has well uh well .. polar bears.
A Royal Baby for England is News! special at eleven.
Jack - Prince Jack - would be a good name.
Last edited:
- #35
256bits
Gold Member
- 4,213
- 2,221
Integral said:
They would be pretty much the same age, Integral. You never know - if the stars are aligned right maybe in twenty years, :!), and you might be dining on fine Royal dinerware.
- #36
WannabeNewton
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 5,848
- 552
Jack Sparrow eh? I wants me a lil baby Jack Sparrow.
- #37
Integral
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
- 7,225
- 66
davenn said:
Thanks! She is 1 month today.
- #38
- 5,963
- 727
Tosh5457 said:
Don't tar all Europeans with the same brush, ever heard of the French Revolution? Of course the monarchies got rich on the basis of past crimes and even though much of this wealth has been claimed back there are still republican movements. The thing is they hold so little practical power and have such a celebrity status (good for tourism) that there's rarely any impetus to launch a lengthy and cosy reform.
- #39
Ken Natton
- 187
- 0
Oh dear, I do feel a compulsion to point out the obvious. Believe me, I offer no criticism at all to those who have expressed their dis-interest here – they are, of course, perfectly entitled to it. But the Cambridges did not ask the world’s media to camp outside the hospital. The world’s media camped outside the hospital because a significant majority of the world’s public are interested. And the same point applies to why the American media have covered the story to the extent they have. It is an old point – the media do no lead public opinion, they reflect it – often in far more unedifying ways than this.
- #40
jackmell
- 1,806
- 54
Integral said:
A precious little princess indeed! The good Duke of Cambridge should be so relieved of having been spared the enormous (and painful) job of seeing a daughter through adolescence relatively unharmed.
Last edited:
- #41
collector
Another question on titles. If the boy were to marry a man, when he grows up, would he also be known as a King?
Surely if a Queen marries a woman then there will be two queens, even by todays laws.
Surely if a Queen marries a woman then there will be two queens, even by todays laws.
- #42
FredericGos
- 61
- 0
Ken Natton said:
Yeah, that's because a significant majority of the world's public are complete morons. :)