THE BABY IS ON ITS WAY!!!! UPDATE - IT'S A BOY!

    

The Duchess of Cambridge is now in London and in the early stages of labour.  LL

It is?    

lily wrote:It is?     

About 2 hours ago she was driven in a car, not an ambulance, to a rear entrance to the Lindo Wing of the hospital. Now we wait .... LL   

Whoopee. I hope it's a boy. I can't be doing with all this sexual equality stuff. And if it's a boy, that'll be that put paid to for the next thirty years.

so all of those photographers and camera crew who have stood there for days on end are denied the pleasure of a pic of her going in. I'm shocked.

Dignity, Rhodes. They are lucky they were even told.

There was no way the Duchess was going to stumble into the hospital in labor in front of that lot. Latest is all is going well an the birth is natural, not assisted. LL

How exciting!  

boy or girl: what is important is that the baby is healthy.

Pedro Silva wrote:boy or girl: what is important is that the baby is healthy.

I do agree, Pedro. I just think they are opening a can of worms in messing about with a Succession Law that has worked for centuries.

Sabot, your words are mine.

Still no news. Kate's probably cursing, swearing, and vowing Never again! round about now.

Sabot wrote:

Pedro Silva wrote:boy or girl: what is important is that the baby is healthy.

I do agree, Pedro.  I just think they are opening a can of worms in messing about with a Succession Law that has worked for centuries.

Six monarchies in Europe have eliminated male preference: Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Luxembourg. Doesn't seem to have been a problem for them. LL

Princess Anne would have made a great King, she only seems happy when she's on an 'orse with a funny hat on. Her, not the horse.  

Excitement mounting on Sky...

Lamplighter wrote:

Sabot wrote:

Pedro Silva wrote:boy or girl: what is important is that the baby is healthy.

I do agree, Pedro.  I just think they are opening a can of worms in messing about with a Succession Law that has worked for centuries.

Six monarchies in Europe have eliminated male preference: Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Luxembourg.  Doesn't seem to have been a problem for them. LL

Can't be doing with it, LL. If there is no male heir then of course the eldest daughter will be Queen, but it is not an easy road to travel for any woman.

The next thing you know every Duke's eldest daughter will be screaming for the same thing.

And then the whole blood line ceases to exist, and some arsehole is going to finish up sitting on the throne of England. They aren't all going to behave as well as The Duke of Edinburgh has.
Or will Parliament pass a Law about who The Queen of England may be allowed to marry?

Well, I have to admit: when the representative of the house of Bragança (monarchy in Portugal) married, Portugal acted exactly like England about the issue.

I thought most of the bloodline was German anyway, sitting on the English throne.

Weren't they Saxe-Coburg-Gotha until 1917?

They do all actually go back to the Stuarts via James VI and I's daughter, I think, Rhodes?

I'm trying to remember - is the first we hear about Royal Baby when an announcement is stuck on the Palace gates? Or have they speeded things up a bit now?

I just don't understand the point of all this messing about, Pedro. What on earth good is this going to do for Feminism, other than to make The Monarchy even more ineffectual than it already is?
Our Queen Elizabeth had no choice because that was The Law of Succession. An accident of nature, if you like. And no one could have done better than she has. But do you really think that she wanted to be Queen when she might have had the time to raise her family quietly?
It is a fact of life that women raise children and men get on and do the stuff. And I just don't see the point of changing the rules to suit a load of politicians who couldn't even cope with a woman Prime Minister.
Just Politically Correct garbage as far as I can see.

bb1 wrote:They do all actually go back to the Stuarts via James VI and I's daughter, I think, Rhodes?

I'm trying to remember - is the first we hear about Royal Baby when an announcement is stuck on the Palace gates? Or have they speeded things up a bit now?

It all goes back for many centuries when they were all fighting about who was going to be King. I am not all that interested in that, beyond the fact that Charlie was the rightful heir. But he was a Catholic, and that was a no no.
So will the next Queen of England be forbidden to marry a Catholic, even if she loves him to death?
They really haven't thought this through. Unless they are trying to eradicate The Monarchy.

hey Sabot, take a deep breath, relax.

I never considered the Queen of England an accident of nature

I know that no one could have had done better than she has, she is doing a great job as queen.

I´m not being rude to you my friend, it is just my opinion.

No, the English Tudor line died out with Elizabeth, Sabot, which was why the Union of the Crowns came about...and it's a moot point whether or not Charlie was the rightful heir due to persist rumours about who his father's father actually was...

The present royals are Stuarts through the female line so really, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Charlie was equally as furrin as George.

I am not being aggressive with you, Pedro. You must have misunderstood me. What the rest of The European Community choose to do is none of my business.
I believe that Britain is hanging on to it's Monarchy by the skin of it's teeth, and this latest insanity will do nothing to help.

If I was The Queen I would take back all of The Crown Property and bog off to New Zealand or Canada, where I suspect they might better appreciate.

message received, also understood.