It was a great day for the UK
years ago when the royal couple married for Love (and not for State), and now they have a Heir to the Throne! 
A Heir to the Throne...it's a Boy (Yeah Baby)!
- Thread starter The Count of Merkur Cristo
- Start date
It was a great day for the UK
years ago when the royal couple married for Love (and not for State), and now they have a Heir to the Throne!
I'm fascinated by all the celebrations. Is the birth of a royal baby always such a huge occasion?
I can't help but compare it to if a US President had a baby, it would be on the news for a couple days then gone. Celebrities having babies get more press than anyone else here in the US.
It's so interesting how the world loves the Royal Family like they do.
Theres bells ringing for 45 minutes in Kate's hometown. 62 canon shots being fired. Weeks of press coverage, folks lined up outside the palace.
It's amazing!
I can't help but compare it to if a US President had a baby, it would be on the news for a couple days then gone. Celebrities having babies get more press than anyone else here in the US.
It's so interesting how the world loves the Royal Family like they do.
Theres bells ringing for 45 minutes in Kate's hometown. 62 canon shots being fired. Weeks of press coverage, folks lined up outside the palace.
It's amazing!
The difference, of course, is that this royal baby is going to be king (eventually). So it's not just his parents' fame/power/position/title the way it would be if a politician or celebrity had a baby, it's his own royal inheritance. He's actually going to be "somebody" rather than just "somebody's son".
I get the importance of it. But honestly, I did not even know they were expecting! If you had asked me when they got married, I would have said less than a year ago. And they got married on my birthday, you'd think I'd remember.
Believe me, there are plenty of us over here who couldn't give two. The birth is going to cost UK taxpayers far more than it'll ever bring back to the economy
Without starting an anti-monarchy rant, allow me to present a case that you will be unable to argue against:
The birth of CJ was a much bigger deal, as far as I'm concerned.
Finally some fantastic news to lift me out of the morass of despair that I've been submerged in since G-Cloon and Stacy Keibler headed to "Splitsville" earlier this month.
Most? Come on now.
Royal Wedding, Jubilee, Royal baby. Pretty good few months for the monarchy, and Britain as a whole what with the Olympics too, and other sporting success (Swansea getting into the Europa League)
I'm 29 now, I wonder if I'll live long enough to see him take the throne.
Last edited by a moderator:
While it's good that everyone have an informed opinion about how and by whom he is governed (figure-head-edly or otherwise) let's not forget that "republican vs royalist" is just as much a political debate as "republican vs. democrat" ... and we don't want to get into a political debate about the merits (or lack thereof) of the Monarchy.
For the Barbershop, let's stick to "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all".
Who is CJ?
If only I knew who this CJ is then maybe I could argue against it. or does the fact I don't know CJ win the argument
That's a big distinction.
I don't quite understand the way the Queen/King titles work over there. I guess it all is just carrying on centuries of traditions. The Queen/King doesn't actually "rule" anything right? The Queen doesn't have any political power so to speak? Like let's say our President does.
Hell, Charles probably wonders if his mother will ever give it up.
- Thread starter
- #15
Any takers on any names for the new Heir?
The Mrs. and I like;
George (after George VI), William (after the father), Edward (after Edward VII), Charles (after his grandfather), Spencer (after his grandmother), Windsor.
"Our [given] names are labels...plainly printed on the bottled essence of our [future destiny]". Logan Pearsall Smith
The Mrs. and I like;
George (after George VI), William (after the father), Edward (after Edward VII), Charles (after his grandfather), Spencer (after his grandmother), Windsor.
The royal family has nothing to do with our political system these days, I don't see the problem with a well constructed verbal bashing given it'd be outside the realm of politics 
CJ is B&B royalty.
His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis.
George!
Hah, it's interesting that you ask if you could equate the Queen with the US President ... in many ways, the US political system was made (in the 1770s/80s, mind you) to resemble the English political system of the day, with "King---House of Lords---House of Commons" replaced by "President---Senate---House of Reps" ... mind you, this is a major simplification of what happened, and YES the Americans made some significant changes ... like making everyone in the system democratically elected, where the English system was almost totally hereditary apart from the Commons, which had its own problems of being unrepresentative. But the power of an English king 250 years ago wasn't totally dissimilar from the power of a US president.
Of course, the English had gotten to that place over centuries of evolution and the occasional revolution, gradually changing the country from an absolute monarchy (where the king can do whatever he wants) to one where the king's power was limited and had to be exercised in a way that did not offend Parliament too much. Of course, after the 1770s, that evolution continued to this day. In general, that period has seen the rise to dominance of the House of Commons, the reduction of the power of the House of Lords, and the even greater reduction of power of the Monarch.
(Very similar situation here in Canada ... in 1867 we received an "English" government system, but simply change the House of Lords for a Senate that is "lifetime appointment" rather than "noble inheritance" ... where the House of Commons is essentially *the* governing body of the country, with the Senate and the Governor-General [Queen's representative when she's not here 99.999% of the time] being basically rubber stamps.)
In theory ... in theory ... the Queen still runs the country ... England and the rest of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, &c ... BUT ... and like Kim Kardashian, it's a big BUT ... the Queen is basically required by law and tradition to follow the advice of her advisers ... by which we mean Parliament ... by which we mean whichever political party holds a majority in Parliament ... which really means that the Prime Minister, whose party holds a majority in the House of Commons, is de facto leader of the country.
Of note, one last vestige of real power that the Queen (and her Governors-General in Canada &c) still hold onto is ... she/they get to pick which party leader gets to try to form a government. Now, normally that's an obvious slam-dunk when an election is over and someone has a majority in the Commons. Even when there is an election and a minority, it's usually a given that whoever has the most gets to try to cobble together a coalition first. But ... if and when a government falls (that is, loses the support of the Commons ... cannot command a majority on an issue of "confidence") then it falls to the Queen or Gov-Gen to decide who should get the next shot at trying to form a government, or whether the matter should go to a general election.
Please not that this is the Cole's Notes of the Reader's Digest version of the Dust Jacket back cover of Parliamentary History for Dummies ... so there's a bit of oversimplification and over-generalisation going on.
