News Are you ready for a next-in-line future Queen or King to be born?

  • Thread starter Thread starter StevieTNZ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Future
AI Thread Summary
Kate Middleton has gone into labor, confirmed by the Palace, and a baby boy has been born, though no name has been announced yet. The discussion touches on changes to succession laws that allow the firstborn to become the ruler, raising questions about whether spouse naming conventions have also been updated. The conversation also includes speculation about whether the royal couple took measures to ensure a male heir, although they reportedly did not want to know the baby's sex before birth. Participants express mixed feelings about the royal birth, with some showing indifference and others highlighting the media's extensive coverage of the event. There is a debate about the relevance of royal families in modern society, with arguments about their historical exploitation of the populace and their current ceremonial roles. The media's fascination with the royal family is acknowledged, with some criticizing the continuous reporting on a story that lacks new developments. Overall, the thread reflects a blend of interest, skepticism, and critique regarding the monarchy and its place in contemporary culture.
Physics news on Phys.org
Still waiting.
 
After they changed the laws so that the firstborn will become ruler (King or Queen) did they also change the spouse naming convention? The wife of the King gets to be Queen, but the husband of the Queen is traditionally given the title Prince (Prince consort).
 
A boy has been born. No name given yet.
 
collector said:
After they changed the laws so that the firstborn will become ruler (King or Queen) did they also change the spouse naming convention?

I go for the Bislama version (the language of the South Pacific Island Vanatu). English translation: "Number one big fella him belong Mrs Queen."
 
collector said:
After they changed the laws so that the firstborn will become ruler (King or Queen) did they also change the spouse naming convention? The wife of the King gets to be Queen, but the husband of the Queen is traditionally given the title Prince (Prince consort).

There is legislation going through NZ's Parliament regarding this, as all Commonwealth countries need the law in place, to align with UK's law.

http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/19593
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yawn!

Baby? Did I mention that my 6th grandchild (1st grandaughter) was recently born?
 
May I ask if the royal couple induced any measures to improve the odds of a boy? I believe sperm with X chromosomes can be separated from sperm with Y chromosomes.
 
jackmell said:
May I ask if the royal couple induced any measures to improve the odds of a boy?
Unlikely, since both parents refused to be told what sex it was before it was born.
 
  • #10
AlephZero said:
Unlikely, since both parents refused to be told what sex it was before it was born.

That's not sufficient: you can still separate the sperm and still not have 100% separation so won't know conclusively if an X got through (the cell membrane) so won't know for sure until examination. And I suppose it's just a coincidence the next in line are four males about the same time we develop the knowledge to select sex this way. Suppose though it would cause controversy if exposed. But you would think for something so important, and a family with resources to do so, that they would want to ensure a male heir.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
I'm not ready. Stick it back in.
 
  • #12
Am I the only one here who doesn't care about her or her baby whatsoever?
 
  • #13
Chemicist said:
Am I the only one here who doesn't care about her or her baby whatsoever?

Nope, you're not the only one.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #14
micromass said:
Nope, you're not the only one.
Yea. Besides, you have to be ready for YOUR new King. :biggrin:
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #15
Chemicist said:
Am I the only one here who doesn't care about her or her baby whatsoever?
Who's baby?
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #16
russ_watters said:
Who's baby?

LOL! I like that attitude. :)
 
  • #17
Integral said:
Yawn!

Baby? Did I mention that my 6th grandchild (1st grandaughter) was recently born?

LOL

I feel much the same way as you

but a hearty congrats on your relatively new grand-daughter :)

Dave
 
  • #18
Applicable to NZ:

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/18107150/rules-shake-up-preceded-royal-birth/

A radical shake-up of the rules of succession was rushed through parliament ahead of the birth of the royal baby.

But with the arrival of a son for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, it is not likely to be until the next generation that the law affects who actually accedes to the throne.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
russ_watters said:
Who's baby?

Hmm, we have a baby which is already predestined to become a ruler at its birth. We have a baby born into an elitist society not everybody can enter and we have this society practicing awkward and strange traditions...I suppose people must be talking about Rosemary's baby. :devil:
 
  • #20
leroyjenkens said:
I'm not ready. Stick it back in.
LOL oh god I lol'ed so hard. The royal "stick it back in" festival need commence!

Anyways, as an American I have more important celebrity babies to pay attention to, especially Kanye and Kim's baby North West.
 
  • #21
. . . Jesus guys, someone had to be king back then and their lineage was. It's a celebration of the growth of humanity from humble, animal, primitive beginnings to the grand skyscrapers and space crafts of today: two hundred-thousand generations and the razor-sharp cutting edge of selection have crafted what we have today and the Royal family had a more-than-ordinary part in that evolution.

So quit hatin' them and I'm not even British.
 
  • #22
Integral said:
Yawn!

Baby? Did I mention that my 6th grandchild (1st grandaughter) was recently born?

Is your granddaughter royalty? No? Yawn...*

Chemicist said:
Am I the only one here who doesn't care about her or her baby whatsoever?

For someone who doesn't care, you took your time to go to the thread, read the posts, post a comment, and reply to replies...

russ_watters said:
Who's baby?

Read the subject of the topic.

Since the baby won't be King for quite sometime, you have more time to be ready.

*Congratulations, by the way!
 
  • #23
I don't disparage the media from covering the birth at all but I can't stand the common trend of constantly reporting that there is nothing to report. It happens with every "major" news story whether it be serious like a bomb attack or trivial like celebrity news.

After the first 15minutes of summary, eye witness accounts and expert interviews there's nothing more to be said but news outlets constantly report with increasing speculation. It's an utter waste of time. With this story all day the news has cut to a reporter standing outside the hospital reporting nothing has happened yet, then they'd ask the reporter to guess when something would happen. Mad!

Imagine how informed about world events people might be if rolling news reported news rather than the lack of development in one story...
 
  • #24
Is there a single person here who effected by "ROYAL" birth?
 
  • #25
America fought to escape from "royalty", so why is our media so entranced? I have to wonder...
 
  • #26
turbo said:
Is there a single person here who effected by "ROYAL" birth?
You mean who will be affected by this birth? Every British person to a certain extent, every commonwealth country to a lesser and the rest of the world even less than that. At the mildest this person will be constantly on the news and eventually on the money, more significantly they will attend hundreds of ceremonial meetings per year meeting foreign diplomats and ministers. Whilst the role is mostly ceremonial it's incorrect to think that the royal family has no effect on British internal and external politics, just look at Prince Charles and his history of lobbying for homoeopathy on the NHS.
 
  • #27
nobahar said:
Is your granddaughter royalty? No? Yawn...*

So what does this mean ? somebody born to privilege, by being lucky to be born in the " ROYAL" family or is it just following of a tradition that existed long time ago.
 
  • #28
nobahar said:
Is your granddaughter royalty? No? Yawn...*

As far as I am concerned she sure is. She is MUCH more important to me then some baby born to the European elite. Yawn!
 
  • #29
nobahar said:
For someone who doesn't care, you took your time to go to the thread, read the posts, post a comment, and reply to replies...

Excuse me, but I didn't realize you were the one dictating what I can and cannot do with my time. It's my time - I'll do what I want with it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
 
  • #30
jackmell said:
So quit hatin' them and I'm not even British.

I don't hate them at all, in fact I love the royal family and I love Britain. (No I'm not British.)

What I hate is how some woman from the royal family has a baby and it's covered all day, every day, for a week or two, on every news station. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
 
  • #31
Integral said:
As far as I am concerned she sure is. She is MUCH more important to me then some baby born to the European elite. Yawn!

Yes Integral, I agree. She is very much royalty. A diamond. I'm glad we got that straighten-out.
 
  • #32
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
Agreed. They are honoring/celebrating the descendants of their ancestors' oppressors.
 
  • #34
Tosh5457 said:
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...

Ohoh - an anti-monarchist in the midst :eek:

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. :smile:

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
Integral said:
As far as I am concerned she sure is. She is MUCH more important to me then some baby born to the European elite. Yawn!

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.:wink:
 
  • #36
Jack Sparrow eh? I wants me a lil baby Jack Sparrow.
 
  • #37
davenn said:
LOL

I feel much the same way as you

but a hearty congrats on your relatively new grand-daughter :)

Dave

Thanks! She is 1 month today.
 
  • #38
Tosh5457 said:
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...

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
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
Integral said:
Thanks! She is 1 month today.

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
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.
 
  • #42
Ken Natton said:
The world’s media camped outside the hospital because a significant majority of the world’s public are interested.

Yeah, that's because a significant majority of the world's public are complete morons. :)
 
Back
Top