Prince Harry

i agree with both your points, Louisa. William seems very down to earth (which when you think about it is a charming pun given his job as a pilot). I love that he had the freedom to conduct his university life as he chose, and that he shared housing with fellow students. And I have long been aware of Kate's thrift when it comes to clothes, both in terms of where she buys them and how she re-uses them. It's one of her most admirable traits, I think. She's definitely not a fashion slave.

Olympia said:

i agree with both your points, Louisa. William seems very down to earth (which when you think about it is a charming pun given his job as a pilot). I love that he had the freedom to conduct his university life as he chose, and that he shared housing with fellow students. And I have long been aware of Kate's thrift when it comes to clothes, both in terms of where she buys them and how she re-uses them. It's one of her most admirable traits, I think. She's definitely not a fashion slave.

Click to expand...

I think the attention paid to her clothing has given a lot of people a false impression. It doesn't seem she is nearly as obsessed with that as all of her "fans" are. And I think that wearing lower end retail clothes and reusing things is both down to earth and the right image to put forward in this era of "austerity". Stepping out in nothing but brand new custom made designer clothing (as Diana basically did) would not endear her to the public in the economic times we live in.

As for William...I was just web surfing and saw a photo of him getting on a public train carrying his own bag.

Kate's wardrobe just proves that several high quality classic pieces can be used a lot longer than trendy items. While not everyone can afford Kate's outfits, they are certainly not totally out of reach for the non-wealthy. She's very similar to Michelle Obama in eschewing wearing only big designer names all of the time.

I also agree that William does seem down to earth. He might not be as easy going as Harry, but that's partly because of his basic personality (a bit shyer) and his being the older brother and 2nd in line to the throne.

As a Royal watcher from Canada, we are used to the Royals visiting here. Actually, after Harry kicked up his heels on one of his visits, his grandma Queen Elizabeth let him know that "she was not amused" with his behavior. I believe after his apologies to the Royals he started to settle down. Now with William and Kate expecting a new addition to the Royal line, Harry has also come into his own.

Royal Protocol

Olympia said:

Yeah, Diana had an astonishing sense of the lives and needs of real people, and not just the nice, ordinary ones but the messy, broken ones as well. It's hard to remember a time when people would not stay in a room with someone who had AIDS, but it wasn't very long ago. The AIDS epidemic started just about at the moment when Diana came along. When she met people with AIDS, she touched them, and what's more, she even hugged them. That's a generosity of spirit that can't be taught. And certainly if it could be taught, it wasn't taught by the royal family. They never touched anyone. Remember the fuss when just a few years ago, Michelle Obama instinctively put her hand on the Queen's shoulder? Shock and scandal! And that was thirty years after Diana showed up. Empathy was one of the great things about Diana. The other great thing was that she tried to instill it in her kids. It appears as if she succeeded, doesn't it.

Click to expand...

I can't help but comment on your remarks "Remember the fuss when just a few years ago, Michelle Obama instinctively put her hand on the Queen's shoulder.." Yes, there would be a "fuss" - certainly an understatement. Here is the list of "do's and don'ts" when greeting the Queen, perhaps Michele should have read them beforehand:

http://www.divinecaroline.com/life-etc/culture-causes/hello-your-majesty-rules-meeting-royal-family

the article does say at the bottom:

"Although it seems to be a lot to remember, it may be comforting to know that Her Majesty and the royal family are so steeped in politeness and graciousness that even if you make a major faux pas, they won’t make you feel bad about it. The British tabloids, on the other hand, who dubbed Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating “The Lizard of Oz” for accidentally touching the queen’s back, may not let you off so easy"

I think in Michele's case Queen Elizabeth did let her off easy - hundreds of years ago the response would have been "Off with her head!"

Ladskater said:

Here is the list of "do's and don'ts" when greeting the Queen, perhaps Michele should have read them beforehand ...

Click to expand...

No doubt Mrs. Obama had received a thorough briefing beforehand from the U.S. chief of protocol. By all accounts, Her Majesty and the First Lady both felt an immediate connection, and Mrs. O apparently could not suppress her innate warmth.
I remember that after the Vancouver Olympians from Team USA met with the Obamas at the White House, one of the excited skaters happily described Mrs. O as a "hugger."

On the subject of clothes:
The Queen herself is known to economize. One of her fancy gowns for the most formal of events was designed to accommodate temporary embellishment (elaborate beading, I think?) appropriate to the occasion. On a visit to Canada, for instance, I think a maple leaf pattern was incorporated. She wore the same dress when she visited another Commonwealth country (I forget which one), and the temporary pattern was emblematic of that sovereignty.

Because it was Diana's birthday recently, there's been even more stuff about her floating around. I watched something online and was reminded that along with her mercurial personality, she had a lot of loose-cannon capabilities. She was clearly in considerable anguish for part of her all-too-short life and made some bad (and very public) decisions as a result. Even those of us who liked and admired her were aware of these traits. By contrast, Kate is far more private with the way she conducts her life, and she also has the benefit of an extraordinarily stable and supportive family. She also has her husband's undivided loyalty, which it's pretty clear Diana didn't have from Charles. One interesting and sad sidelight: in Diana's class, where an aristocratic title and inherited property are at stake, in a divorce the children seem to go to the father, no matter what their age, because in a very real sense they are part of the family property. Diana was therefore largely motherless from the age of eight. So at the risk of being a dime store psychiatrist, Kate doesn't have that inner spot of emptiness and hunger that needs filling by public adulation. She gets her love from home.

Also, times have changed, and a certain amount of that change has resulted from the way Diana was treated and rebelled of it. I love that when Kate has the baby, she's staying with her parents in their house for awhile. I am so happy that this woman seems to be both the giver and receiver of stability. In that way, she seems a lot like the Queen Mother, the late Elizabeth, who was the stalwart companion of King George VI through all storms--and they faced some doozies in their day.

Olympia said:

I love that when Kate has the baby, she's staying with her parents in their house for awhile.

Click to expand...

That rumor seemed to have originated from not very reliable tabloid sources and the press has ran with it to an absurd degree. Slate had a video claiming they are moving in with her parents permanently. Not even. Official spokespeople have said nothing about any stay, short or long term, with her parents. A larger apartment at Kensington Palace is being renovated for them. In the mean time, it is likely Kate & baby will go home to their current residence there and later to the rental they have in Wales where William is stationed with the RAF. The Queen has also given them a country house at Sandringham.

louisa05 said:

That rumor seemed to have originated from not very reliable tabloid sources and the press has ran with it to an absurd degree. Slate had a video claiming they are moving in with her parents permanently. Not even. Official spokespeople have said nothing about any stay, short or long term, with her parents. A larger apartment at Kensington Palace is being renovated for them. In the mean time, it is likely Kate & baby will go home to their current residence there and later to the rental they have in Wales where William is stationed with the RAF. The Queen has also given them a country house at Sandringham.

Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if this was true, as well. As the 3rd in line to the throne and the crazy paparazzi, the baby will need security forces. I don't know if Kate's parents home would be as secure as the Palace.

What wouldn't surprise me is if Kate and William had her parents stay with them during the initial weeks. Although they will have staff to assist, K&W strike me as wanting to be hands-on until they need to return to work (like most new parents.) Also, new mother's typically feel more comfortable with the aid of their own mother's.

I guess if I had thought about it, I would have realized that their staying at Chez Middleton was impractical. But I do assume that Mrs. Middleton will be with Kate after the baby is born. I still remember a friend of mine whose mother and grandmother moved in to help in the first weeks after childbirth. After the mother had to go home, the grandmother stayed on for a bit. It makes such a difference to have such support.

Olympia said:

I guess if I had thought about it, I would have realized that their staying at Chez Middleton was impractical. But I do assume that Mrs. Middleton will be with Kate after the baby is born. I still remember a friend of mine whose mother and grandmother moved in to help in the first weeks after childbirth. After the mother had to go home, the grandmother stayed on for a bit. It makes such a difference to have such support.

Click to expand...

It has been more reliably reported that they have not hired a baby nurse or a nanny yet and that they are not expected to hire anyone until Kate resumes official duties. So I think it is likely that her mother may stay with them and help for a bit. My grandmother traveled to stay with my mom when she had my brother and later me. A friend of mine just had baby number seven and her mother has spent the first two weeks with her each time. So that is refreshingly normal.

...and he's born! A baby boy has arrived, and everyone seems safe and healthy.

I know there are names such as James (two kings) and George (six kings, including the popular George VI) as possibilities, but I would just love to see Arthur as his name. So far there's been only one Arthur in line for the English throne (not counting THE King Arthur), and he was Henry VII's older son. His death as a teenager freed up his betrothed, Katherine of Aragon, to be affianced to the next son, Henry. And therein lies a tale of lost Queens, a split in the Church, and all manner of historical derring-do. But I think that the good vibes from the original Arthur should be considered once more. After all, William and Kate have been residing in Wales. What better way to stress this than to name their son after the Once and Future King of the Britons?

Olympia said:

...and he's born! A baby boy has arrived, and everyone seems safe and healthy.

I know there are names such as James (two kings) and George (six kings, including the popular George VI) as possibilities, but I would just love to see Arthur as his name. So far there's been only one Arthur in line for the English throne (not counting THE King Arthur), and he was Henry VII's older son. His death as a teenager freed up his betrothed, Katherine of Aragon, to be affianced to the next son, Henry. And therein lies a tale of lost Queens, a split in the Church, and all manner of historical derring-do. But I think that the good vibes from the original Arthur should be considered once more. After all, William and Kate have been residing in Wales. What better way to stress this than to name their son after the Once and Future King of the Britons?

Click to expand...

I think Arthur would be a surprise, but isn't out of the running. It is a middle name for both Charles and William and may be more likely to appear as a middle name.

I'm seeing lots of people predicting Philip for a first name. I think that would be nice but also a surprise. I can see it being a name for a second son or Harry's son or for one of the York girls to use for a boy rather than for the future king.

And, of course, the crazed Diana fans are about the web yelling for the baby to be named Spencer. I'm sure they will blame Camilla if it is not. And it won't be.

My bet is still on George for a first name. James is likely ruled out as it is the name of Prince Edward's son and Kate's brother.

Hmmm. I would think that Philip could be a middle name, as it is with Charles and William himself, but I'm fairly certain that it would never be the first name of a future king because of Philip II of Spain, who was not only the husband of Mary I, Elizabeth's Catholic older sister, but also later initiated the Armada in 1588. He was practically the bogeyman in England for decades.

Spencer would be nice. I guess it could be a middle name, although somehow I doubt even that. I can't remember another family's surname used in the long chain of names of royal family members. They seem all to be first names: Charles Philip Arthur George, William Philip Arthur Louis (I think), and so on. Wouldn't it be interesting if one of the middle names was Francis, the masculine version of Diana's middle name? Too bad there's no masculine version of Diana.

Olympia said:

Hmmm. I would think that Philip could be a middle name, as it is with Charles and William himself, but I'm fairly certain that it would never be the first name of a future king because of Philip II of Spain, who was not only the husband of Mary I, Elizabeth's Catholic older sister, but also later initiated the Armada in 1588. He was practically the bogeyman in England for decades.

Spencer would be nice. I guess it could be a middle name, although somehow I doubt even that. I can't remember another family's surname used in the long chain of names of royal family members. They seem all to be first names: Charles Philip Arthur George, William Philip Arthur Louis (I think), and so on. Wouldn't it be interesting if one of the middle names was Francis, the masculine version of Diana's middle name? Too bad there's no masculine version of Diana.

Click to expand...

I suspect that we will see the name Diana and any other connected names as tributes to her left to Harry's children. And that may be for the best. The Diana-crazies are a bit scary. Harry's future children will be a bit less in the limelight (think of Andrew's daughters) and having her name/s will not be as much pressure on them. My mom suggested that maybe William got the ring for Kate (which was actually left to Harry) and Harry gets the names in return.

As for the new prince, I just hope they don't keep us waiting to know his name for too long. Charles' name was not announced for a month. One of Andrew's daughters was two weeks or more and William's name wasn't announced for a full week. Harry's was announced when they left the hospital. I hope that is the case here!

That's a good point you make about Harry's getting "custody" of the names. I did not realize that Harry had inherited the ring! That makes it extra meaningful that Kate ended up with it, doesn't it? It passed through several sets of loving hands to get to her. What's nice is that the two brothers seem to be such a tight team, and each one seems to look out for the other. Whatever mistakes Diana made, she did a splendid job of bringing up her sons, and Charles played a significant part in that as well.

I must say, I'm surprised at how involved I feel in this event. I think it's just such a relief to have an international story that isn't based on war or greed.

Edited later in the day:

The best joke I've heard so far about the baby came from American weather anchor Al Roker on TV--If the baby sees his shadow on the day he's brought out of the hospital, we'll have six more weeks of summer. (Somehow that really tickled my funnybone.)

Olympia said:

Edited later in the day:

The best joke I've heard so far about the baby came from American weather anchor Al Roker on TV--If the baby sees his shadow on the day he's brought out of the hospital, we'll have six more weeks of summer. (Somehow that really tickled my funnybone.)

Click to expand...

Olympia, I can't tell if he is seeing his shadow or not.

http://www.today.com/news/world-awaits-first-glimpse-newborn-royal-prince-6C10713859?GT1=43001

I guess Weezer is not an appropriate name for the new little prince.

The photos have been so darling.

Weezer...hey, the little munchkin needs a nickname, doesn't he?

Olympia said:

Weezer...hey, the little munchkin needs a nickname, doesn't he?

Click to expand...

No need for a nickname for the baby. Sky News let the cat out of the bag about the baby’s name on their on-screen graphic during the coverage last night!

A guy I went to school with took this photo of the TV screen:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd....x720/936502_10151729904123485_154159781_n.jpg

He added the following caption to it:

"The baby is called leave....king leave...nice ring to it"

!!!


Seriously, though, I have been giving some thought to a possible name.

If they were going to use the same name as a previous monarch, I would prefer it to be one that wasn’t used as frequently on the list of English monarchs, such as a 2nd Stephen, a 2nd John, or a 4th Richard.

Notice how I did not mention Charles (so far 2) or William (so far 4 for England/3 for Scotland). That is because these are the names of the baby’s grandfather and father. I have always thought it was silly having families where close relatives have the same name. Like, imagine having a family get-together, say at Christmas. Somebody shouts the name, and 2 people respond.

I kinda liked the idea of a “King Michael”, but that was before I found out that Kate Middleton’s Dad was called Michael.

Of course, there is a way around this confusion – refer to the child by it’s middle name. That is what happened with my uncle. He was named after his Dad, but has always been called by his middle name. In fact the same thing happened with the current Queen’s uncle, Edward VIII. He was named after his Uncle, Prince Albert Victor (who, for some reason, was known as “Eddy”), but was always referred to by his middle name, David. Then, when he became King, Prince David reverted back to his first name, Edward.

Personally, I am not a big fan of names being recycled over and over again. Like, do we really want to have the prospect of a 9th Henry, a 9th Edward, or a 7th George?

Mind you, I suppose 9 is not as bad as the 19 monarchs with the name “Louis” that they had in France. Then there is the small matter of Popes, where the highest count is 23 for the name “John”!

Which brings us to the small matter of something else I don’t like – assuming a different name when you take office. This happens most frequently with Popes. The trend was started by the second Pope John, because his real name was Mercurio, and it wouldn’t have looked good to have a Catholic leader having the same name as a Roman God! And unfortunately, the trend it caught on. To the extent that, were it not for non-Johns assuming that name, there would only be 10 Pope Johns! (Which is still a lot, but more manageable than 23!)

It also happened with the current Queen’s Dad, George VII. His first name was actually Albert, and he was known as Prince Albert. But, when he became King after his brother’s abdication, he crowned using his middle name. Funnily enough, it was exactly the same with George VII’s Granda, Edward VII. His first name was also Albert, but he too was crowned using his middle name.

From what I can find out, it was Edward VII’s Mum that started this trend of being crowned using your middle name. Queen Victoria’s first name was actually Alexandrina.

Which brings me to a name I would love to see given to the new baby – Alexander. I have always loved pretty much all names that can be shortened to “Alex” – Alexander, Alessandro, Alexei, Aleix, Alexandra, Alexandrina, Alexis, etc. Plus, they could use the line that he was named after Edward VII’s wife, Alexandra of Denmark (who would be the new baby’s Great-Great-Great Granny!)

Oh, and it is not as if there hasn’t been a King Alexander in Britain before. 3 Kings of Scotland were called Alexander.

Prince Charles has a lot of connections with Scotland – not least following in Prince Phillip’s footsteps by going to school there (although, admittedly, Charles didn’t like Gordonstoun!) So, perhaps we should consider names of Scottish Kings.

Obviously, I would not inflict “King Macbeth II” on the wee fella. Nor would I suggest he could be become a 4th King Donald (he would be plagued with too many Disney jokes at school!) But, perhaps he could be a 5th King Malcolm; or a 4th King Robert; or a 4th King Kenneth (my Dad’s name!); or a 3rd King David (my middle name!); or even a 2nd King Edgar.

The most common name for Kings of Scotland was James (7 of them). But, I do not think that name would go down very well. King James VII of Scotland (who was also King James II of England and Ireland) is still a very controversial character, especially here in Northern Ireland. I won’t go into it all, but suffice to say that he was the last Catholic King of Britain and Ireland.

Another name I liked was naming the wee fella after his Great-Granda, Prince Philip. But, again, much as I like the current Prince Philip and the sound of “King Philip”, the prospect of a King Philip would not be very popular in England. As Olympia has already pointed out, the last King Philip that features in British history, King Philip II of Spain, sent the Spanish Armada to invade England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. So, rather than accepting the name as being a tribute to the current Queen Elizabeth’s husband, some people will twist the story and say it is a reference to the previous Queen Elizabeth’s nemesis. So, better not take that chance!

One name that my Dad thinks will be used (albeit as a middle name) is Louis, after Louis Mountbatten, Prince Philip’s Uncle. Prince Charles was very close to Lord Mountbatten, but he was murdered in 1979. When Prince William was born in 1982, he was given Louis as a middle name in tribute. However, Prince William never knew Lord Mountbatten, so he may not feel a strong enough connection to name his own son after him.

So, on balance, I’m going for Alexander, with at least one out of Michael, Charles, Philip, Louis and Albert featuring as middle names!

CaroLiza_fan

Maybe it was too many Prince Albert in a can jokes or just the smoking tobacco association that caused these guys to want to dissociate themselves from the name?

A typical kid's phone prank from the 1950's. You called a store. You asked, "Do you have Prince Albert in a can?" Then you said, "Geez, then you better let him out," and hung up.