- #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
SUMMARY
The Duchess of Cambridge has gone into labor, confirmed by the Palace, with a boy born as the firstborn heir under the new succession laws that allow the firstborn to become ruler regardless of gender. The discussion highlights the implications of these laws on royal titles, particularly the spouse naming conventions, where a King’s wife becomes Queen, while a Queen’s husband is titled Prince Consort. Additionally, there is ongoing legislation in New Zealand's Parliament to align with UK laws regarding royal succession. The conversation also touches on public interest and media coverage surrounding the royal birth, with mixed sentiments expressed by forum participants.
PREREQUISITES- Understanding of royal succession laws in the UK and Commonwealth.
- Familiarity with the titles and roles within the British monarchy.
- Knowledge of the media's role in shaping public interest in royal events.
- Awareness of the historical context of monarchy and its societal implications.
- Research the latest updates on royal succession laws in the UK and Commonwealth countries.
- Explore the implications of royal titles and their historical significance.
- Investigate the role of media in public perception of royal events and celebrity culture.
- Examine public opinion trends regarding monarchy and its relevance in modern society.
Individuals interested in royal history, political science students, media analysts, and anyone following current events related to the British monarchy and its impact on society.
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
- 23,797
- 11,236
Agreed. They are honoring/celebrating the descendants of their ancestors' oppressors.
- #34
256bits
Gold Member
- 4,195
- 2,201
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
- 4,195
- 2,201
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
- 726
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. :)