The Royal Child

[Creed]

Fairly sure the ruling family of the United Kingdom isn't very present on the GiTP forums, but I had to express my best wishes for their first born, and a son at that!

May his reign be longer and more successful than that of King Joffrey Baratheon.

[Pepz]

I wish the kid all the best. And I really want to know the name.... just make it complete ;)

[Grinner]

I don't understand why everyone is celebrating.

[Mynxae]

I don't understand why everyone is celebrating.

We're celebrating the continuance of the Royal blood-line of England, isn't that something worth celebrating? :smallconfused:

[Grinner]

We're celebrating the continuance of the Royal blood-line of England, isn't that something worth celebrating? :smallconfused:

No, it is not.

[Em Blackleaf]

Hahah may he be a FAR better ruler than King Joffrey Beratheon as well xD

Does the boy have a name yet?

[CurlyKitGirl]

Hahah may he be a FAR better ruler than King Joffrey Beratheon as well xD

Does the boy have a name yet?

I think it's pretty easy to be a better ruler than Joffrey Baratheon.

As for names, traditionally there's a fairly small pool of names for a royal (especially one so high in the line of succession) to have. For a boy: James, George, William, Henry/Harry, and Edward. I think the vast majority of monarchs have had those names.
Charles is considered somewhat unlucky given the fates of the two previous King Charles. And after Richard III and the ensuing Tudor propaganda it's been a little out of fashion. Also Arthur for superstitious reasons.
Current bets seem to favour George or James.

Also, I only found out the baby had been born because of this thread.

[Anarion]

Fairly sure the ruling family of the United Kingdom isn't very present on the GiTP forums, but I had to express my best wishes for their first born, and a son at that!

May his reign be longer and more successful than that of King Joffrey Baratheon.

Setting your expectations a bit low, aren't you?


No, it is not.

Sure it is. It's a continuation of a long tradition, accompanied by all sorts of formality and ceremony. Because of the previous broad influence of the British Empire, a very significant portion of the world looks favorably upon the British monarchy and values that tradition as a sign of strength and security in the world.

[The Glyphstone]

No hope for Prince Steve, then?

[Anarion]

No hope for Prince Steve, then?

They still haven't picked a name yet as of this posting. And if I'm understanding right, there's some sort of special naming ceremony next month. So, you don't have to give up your hopes and dreams quite yet.

[Tebryn]

We're celebrating the continuance of the Royal blood-line of England, isn't that something worth celebrating? :smallconfused:

For some ya. My country of origin fought a bloody war to get away from Kings, dynasties and the like. I regret that we now seem obsessed with it. I'm happy they had a kid but I care about them having a kid as much as I care about the family down the street having a kid which is to say I don't care what so ever.

[Serpentine]

Wellp. Looks like we've got another thing to add to the short list of things I care less about than sport :B

[Castaras]

The day of the royal baby and we get some internet censorship laws coming in... huzzah...

[Starwulf]

No, it is not.

Agreed. My poor Siberia got preempted tonight for the news of the kid being born. Whoop-de-doo, there are thousands of kids born every day(give or take a few hundred thousand). It's not like the royals have much of anything to do with the actual governance of england anymore. Figure-heads, and very little more then that.

[Togath]

Aye, I have the same sort of feelings toward it, even without taking my nationality(or ancestry) into account, it seems a bit silly to make so much fuss over their child to me.

[Imperial Psycho]

I think it's pretty easy to be a better ruler than Joffrey Baratheon.

As for names, traditionally there's a fairly small pool of names for a royal (especially one so high in the line of succession) to have. For a boy: James, George, William, Henry/Harry, and Edward. I think the vast majority of monarchs have had those names.
Charles is considered somewhat unlucky given the fates of the two previous King Charles. And after Richard III and the ensuing Tudor propaganda it's been a little out of fashion. Also Arthur for superstitious reasons.
Current bets seem to favour George or James.

Also, I only found out the baby had been born because of this thread.

To be fair, it's not unusual to take a new name on ascending to the throne.

That said, being third in line, he will probably get a royal name, yeah. And as for Charles being unlucky, tell that to the Prince of Wales. :smallbiggrin:

[Surfing HalfOrc]

I think it's pretty easy to be a better ruler than Joffrey Baratheon.

As for names, traditionally there's a fairly small pool of names for a royal (especially one so high in the line of succession) to have. For a boy: James, George, William, Henry/Harry, and Edward. I think the vast majority of monarchs have had those names.
Charles is considered somewhat unlucky given the fates of the two previous King Charles. And after Richard III and the ensuing Tudor propaganda it's been a little out of fashion. Also Arthur for superstitious reasons.
Current bets seem to favour George or James.

Also, I only found out the baby had been born because of this thread.

King John is also out after only one time at bat. Since there has been a George, John and Richard (Ringo Starr (Richard Starkey)), maybe it's time for a Paul? :smallwink:

[Kobold-Bard]

...

Current bets seem to favour George or James.

Also, I only found out the baby had been born because of this thread.

IIRC Charles wants to be King George when he's coronated, so unless he's planning on abdicating I'd think it's unlikely to be that.

I'm already not a fan of this kid, I lost £10 because he's not a girl.

[Eldan]

Wouldn't a Paul risk standing on the pope's toes? And all the other names are Germanic, they'll probably stick to that, not choose a Roman name.

Edit: And Paulus apparently means "small" or "Humble". Not quite a name for a king, compared to Warrior (Charles, Karl), Home Ruler (Henry, Heimrich) or Brave and Powerful (Richard).

PPS: So I forgot George is Greek. So sue me. And it means "Farmer". Now that's a weird name for a king.

[Kobold-Bard]

I don't understand why everyone is celebrating.

People like celebrity babies.

[Killer Angel]

For some ya. My country of origin fought a bloody war to get away from Kings, dynasties and the like.

I would say that some kings were better than others...
That said, every country got what deserves, after all: in this specific case, I'm happy for England, I cannot image Great Britain without a king (or a queen).

[Imperial Psycho]

I think we should go for a traditional Saxon name. A new Athelstan is in order, I think. :smalltongue:

No? Harold III perhaps? Alfred II? :smallamused:

[Brother Oni]

No hope for Prince Steve, then?

There was a King Stephen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen,_King_of_England), so it's possible. :smallbiggrin:


It's not like the royals have much of anything to do with the actual governance of england anymore. Figure-heads, and very little more then that.

It's complicated.

Leaving aside the actual governance and being head of a soverign state, passports are still issued in the name of the Queen, she's the titular head of the armed forces and head of the Anglican Church.

This is not to mention the significant amount of land directly owned by the royal family which is leased to Parliament in return for a stipend (Parliament get the better part of that deal).

I seriously doubt the new royal baby will have a significant effect on my life in the UK, so aside from the change to succession and wishing the new family well, I'm not too bothered.

[Serpentine]

I nominate Ethelred, or maybe Cnut.

[Ursus the Grim]

I'm on the 'meh' ship, mostly because of over-saturation here in the states. The last three weeks, my regular morning show won't stop talking about it.

I understand why its a big fuss in the UK, even if the royal family is more or less a figurehead, but I personally don't care. Heck, I almost feel bad for the kid. I'd be comfortable with a life of privilege in exchange for, you know, constant scrutiny, but this kid doesn't have a choice.

[razark]

People like celebrity babies.
Why?

I've never understood why people make a fuss over something that has managed to do nothing further than being born to famous parents.

[RCgothic]

I'm British and a republican. I'm not looking forward to Charles as king. I seriously hope we abolish the monarchy long before where this kid comes in the line of succession becomes an issue. :smallmad:

I have even less understanding for why the US seems to be so in favour. You fought a war to get rid of them, why are you celebrating?! :smallconfused:

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Perhaps: Ralph? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102216/?mode=desktop) :smallwink:

Eh, I'm probably showing my age with that one. Carry on, then.

As for celebrity love, what can I say? Some folks love celebs, others not so much. Never could see the appeal of Keeping Up with the Kardashians... But somehow, they are quite often on the cover of gossip mags. Meh.

[Ursus the Grim]

Perhaps: Ralph? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102216/?mode=desktop) :smallwink:

Eh, I'm probably showing my age with that one. Carry on, then.

As for celebrity love, what can I say? Some folks love celebs, others not so much. Never could see the appeal of Keeping Up with the Kardashians... But somehow, they are quite often on the cover of gossip mags. Meh.

Hey, I got that reference! Granted, it was kind of dated by the time I was old enough to watch and digest it, but I got it!

As for celebrities, the babies are especially popular because its one of the few times we hear about celebs that ISN'T a scandal.

[Kobold-Bard]

Why?

I've never understood why people make a fuss over something that has managed to do nothing further than being born to famous parents.

Why do you visit an RPG forum?

Different stuff interests, excites and entertains different people.

[Amidus Drexel]

Why?

I've never understood why people make a fuss over something that has managed to do nothing further than being born to famous parents.

Well, it's a really easy story for media organizations to grab, and they can guarantee that more people will watch it because they're royalty.

I personally don't care either way, but I'm a bit used to this sort of celebrity thing happening.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

I'm somewhat indifferent to the Royals, myself - I like that we get time off now and then for their good behaviour (I went to France on holiday with the day off granted for the latest wedding).

I'm very conscious however, that this thread is bound to stray into current, real world politics. Surely there's no way to discuss the future head of state of dozens of nations without talking politics?
Some moderator advice here would be welcome!

[snoopy13a]

I have even less understanding for why the US seems to be so in favour. You fought a war to get rid of them, why are you celebrating?! :smallconfused:

Because, at the end of the day, they aren't our royal family. There's a certain appeal to the pageantry of royals--which Americans can enjoy from a distance. You can say that we get the benefit of royals without the cost.

In addition, we can make fun of our Canadian friends by pointing out that Prince Charles will be on their money soon :smalltongue:

[EmeraldRose]

I nominate Ethelred, or maybe Cnut.

These are good. If all else fails, Floki would also be good...

[Zea mays]

Hrm. A small question for those of you more versed in British history: when was the last time that a ruling monarch welcomed a great-grandchild?

[snoopy13a]

Hrm. A small question for those of you more versed in British history: when was the last time that a ruling monarch welcomed a great-grandchild?

Queen Victoria when the future King Edward VIII was born in 1894.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Obligatory "half-blood prince" joke.

[Killer Angel]

I have even less understanding for why the US seems to be so in favour. You fought a war to get rid of them, why are you celebrating?! :smallconfused:

for a similar reason, I suppose that english people, shouldn’t be interested in the election day of their old colony… :smalltongue:

[Surrealistik]

No, it is not.

+1.

And tbh, I'm sick of this ubiquitous media frenzy over something so totally inconsequential, particularly given what's going on in the US and elsewhere. I can only pray it ends sooner rather than later so the press can (or is forced to) focus on far more substantive matters.

[Amidus Drexel]

for a similar reason, I suppose that english people, shouldn’t be interested in the election day of their old colony… :smalltongue:

Y'all really shouldn't. Personally, I think it gets far too much hype here. :smallamused:

[Brother Oni]

Heck, I almost feel bad for the kid. I'd be comfortable with a life of privilege in exchange for, you know, constant scrutiny, but this kid doesn't have a choice.

It's not as bad as you think. There's generally a tacit understanding between St James' Palace and the UK press that as long as the children get wheeled out every now and again on formal occasions, their privacy is respected at other times.

This doesn't apply to public gaffs they may make *cough*Harry*cough* and foreign press is viewed as an 'occupational hazard', for lack of a better term.

[Kindablue]

I hope they name him Star Commander.

[Zea mays]

Queen Victoria when the future King Edward VIII was born in 1894.

Thanks. Figured if anyone, it would be her.
Now I'm curious to see the newspaper headlines for that day.

[RCgothic]

for a similar reason, I suppose that english people, shouldn’t be interested in the election day of their old colony… :smalltongue:

As leader of the most powerful country on the planet, who becomes US president does affect us.

On the other hand, who the British monarch is doesn't even affect the British in any meaningful way! High time we did away with this relic of a past better consigned to history.

[Deepbluediver]

Does the boy have a name yet?

I'm sure he has a name, but AFAIK it hasn't been announced. I read in a news article that there are websites where you can actually bet on what it's going to be though, if you want.

Odds are favoring something traditional like George or James.

[snoopy13a]

I read a news article that there are websites where you can actually bet on what it's going to be though, if you want.

If I was Prince William, I'd be all over those gambling sites :smallsmile:

They should name him "Charming," then he'll be destined to be a hero :smalltongue:

[Kobold-Bard]

...

On the other hand, who the British monarch is doesn't even affect the British in any meaningful way! High time we did away with this relic of a past better consigned to history.

You said yourself they have no impact, and they bring in more money than they cost, even including salaries for their many, many, many employees on top of the Sovereign Grant. Why do away with something so ingrained into our society & history when it does no harm?

[Imperial Psycho]

Besides, there is a certain amount of national prestige associated with the Monarchy. Considering a ceremonial presidents duties would likely be similar to the current monarchs, the monarch has the advantages of extremely strong ties all over the world, and being internationally recognisable in a way that a constantly changing presidential figure wouldn't be able to match.

Besides, if we had a referendum on whether we should keep the monarchy, there really is no doubt which way it'd swing. So in that way, keeping them is the will of the people.

Edit: Hmm. Might have just strayed into Real World politics here. Guess I'll stop.

[RCgothic]

Allowing the monarchy to continue is both damaging to the concept of equality and for the poor kids forced to live with the expectation of a nation held over them.

I don't agree that it's harmless, and even if it is a net earner for the UK, still well worth abolishing.

[Giggling Ghast]

I have even less understanding for why the US seems to be so in favour. You fought a war to get rid of them, why are you celebrating?! :smallconfused:

Because the war was two hundred years ago. I think those wounds have healed. Nowadays, something that happened 10 years ago feels like ancient times.

I know my mom is pretty sick and tired of the baby updates, and she's pretty enthralled with British culture overall.

[Deepbluediver]

Allowing the monarchy to continue is both damaging to the concept of equality and for the poor kids forced to live with the expectation of a nation held over them.

I don't agree that it's harmless, and even if it is a net earner for the UK, still well worth abolishing.

I admit to not being an expert about the current state of the English Monarchy, but AFAIK most of their political power is gone, and they are pretty much hereditary celebrities/ambassadors.

You can "abolish" the position if you want, but unless you also confiscate all their property they'll still be really rich people with a long and well-known pedigree, and therefor will have both influence on the attention of large chunks of the population. You can't just command people to stop paying attention to them.


I have even less understanding for why the US seems to be so in favour. You fought a war to get rid of them, why are you celebrating?! :smallconfused:
Here in 'Murica, we don't much care for kings and royalty, but we sure do buy a whole lotta tabloids. :smalltongue:

In all seriousness, it makes the newspapers because that's what sells, but outside of a few select groups I don't get the impression that people are really celebrating. Its just something that happened, and not everyone even cares about it to the same degree. I've spent more time discussing the recent airplane crashes (one last week in CA, another one yesterday in New York) than the royal family.

[AtlanteanTroll]

You can "abolish" the position if you want, but unless you also confiscate all their property they'll still be really rich people with a long and well-known pedigree, and therefor will have both influence on the attention of large chunks of the population. You can't just command people to stop paying attention to them
It would also allow them to grab positions of "actual" power. What with all the assets you mentioned.

[CurlyKitGirl]

In all seriousness, it makes the newspapers because that's what sells, but outside of a few select groups I don't get the impression that people are really celebrating. Its just something that happened, and not everyone even cares about it to the same degree. I've spent more time discussing the recent airplane crashes (one last week in CA, another one yesterday in New York) than the royal family.

It's the same over here, most people were just annoyed that the media kept going on about it. I'd imagine most people are glad the baby's been born just because the baby squee will die down eventually.
Frankly, I just wonder if they'll declare a Bank Holiday for the baby naming or something. Royal events are good for getting days off.

[razark]

It would also allow them to grab positions of "actual" power. What with all the assets you mentioned.
You mean they'd actually have to put forth effort to earn their position based on merit/resources, instead of having it handed to them because of who their parents were?

[Deepbluediver]

It would also allow them to grab positions of "actual" power. What with all the assets you mentioned.

Excellent point there.


You mean they'd actually have to put forth effort to earn their position based on merit/resources, instead of having it handed to them because of who their parents were?

I'm pretty sure if Michael Jordan ran for president with Hulk Hogan as his VP, he'd still get more votes than any third-part candidate in the last half-century.
Then they get elected and appoint Snooky as Secretary of Defense.
For further reference, see "the Governator".

[AtlanteanTroll]

You mean they'd actually have to put forth effort to earn their position based on merit/resources, instead of having it handed to them because of who their parents were?

Well clearly I'm not British, so I'm just speculating, but given all the money they seem to have accrued it wouldn't be too much effort. It's not like they seem to be doing much with the money they do have aside from live lavishly and sit on it.

Also what Deepbluediver said, that is what I was getting at.

[Killer Angel]

As leader of the most powerful country on the planet, who becomes US president does affect us.

On the other hand, who the British monarch is doesn't even affect the British in any meaningful way! High time we did away with this relic of a past better consigned to history.

I'm aware of that, of course.
But see it this way, and imagine it, when saw from the eyes of a foreigner.

This (http://www.google.it/imgres?imgurl=http://www.davidwallphoto.com/gallery/Other/London_England/IEng286.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.davidwallphoto.com/detail/1593-Queens-Guard,-Buckingham-Palace,-London,-England,-United-Kingdom.html&h=450&w=300&sz=83&tbnid=S96a9JrinI3WRM:&tbnh=108&tbnw=72&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbritish%2Bsoldier%2Bbearskin%2Bhat%26 tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=british+soldier+bearskin+hat&usg=__oify0GwtBcN_f6ivufyI9rEyOn0=&docid=7-PtyohHe4Pw7M&sa=X&ei=y7nuUffGLtGN4gStx4CwBw&sqi=2&ved=0CFMQ9QEwBg&dur=1110) is not a member of a reenacting Group, but an actual soldier on active duty.

And this (http://www.google.it/search?q=royal+carriage+parade&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=VbvuUYPCO-Xl4gTB3oHQBw&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1680&bih=905#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=ox1oJbfvTSQw8M%3A%3B_QzwrPU5_iIHuM%3Bhttp%25 3A%252F%252Fi2.mirror.co.uk%252Fincoming%252Fartic le855246.ece%252FALTERNATES%252Fs615%252FI120530_1 53814_42727697.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.mirror .co.uk%252Fnews%252Fuk-news%252Fwhat-time-is-the-diamond-jubilee-procession-863191%3B615%3B409) is not an historical parade.

Face it: old england (and its monarchy) are strangely fascinating.

[razark]

Well clearly I'm not British...
Neither am I, for the record.


...given all the money they seem to have accrued it wouldn't be too much effort. It's not like they seem to be doing much with the money they do have aside from live lavishly and sit on it.

I'm pretty sure if Michael Jordan ran for president with Hulk Hogan as his VP, he'd still get more votes than any third-part candidate in the last half-century
But they would still have to win the election to hold the position. Whether that is easy or hard is not the point, merit vs. entitlement is.

[TheThan]

I just wish the media over here would back off. I mean seriously, she just had a baby. What are they going to do interview the kid? That’ll go over great.

Reporter: “so what are your views of the current state of affairs?”
Baby: “whaaaaah, whaaaaaah”.
Reporter: “ahh I see”

Geeze.

[AtlanteanTroll]

But they would still have to win the election to hold the position. Whether that is easy or hard is not the point, merit vs. entitlement is.

It'd be an easy enough win, I think, and they'd actually be allowed to run and do actual political stuff if they weren't monarchs. So... Yeah.

[Spiryt]

You mean they'd actually have to put forth effort to earn their position based on merit/resources, instead of having it handed to them because of who their parents were?

There are thousands of thousands of people who have their position and merit just because who their parents are.

And it's not going to change in anyway, because you cannot in any sensible (ethical) way to prohibit someone from leaving money/position/power to their children.

That's how world rolls, and I'm not sure why there's a big fuss about such people actually being left with some representation function, when they have to behave, watch themselves etc. :smallwink:

The question is if it actually really serves real English purposes, but seeing on how much people care, the prestige of symbol is still there.

[TheThan]

Well over here in the States, there are a lot of people who feel they are entitled to certain positions and privileges based solely on who their parents are.
It shouldn’t matter who these people’s parents are, or how much money they happen to have. If they are not qualified for that position then why should they be given it? If they earn their position, that’s entirely different, they’ve earned it.
I don’t know about others, but this entitlement attitude and system rubs against me wrong.

[Spiryt]

Well over here in the States, there are a lot of people who feel they are entitled to certain positions and privileges based solely on who their parents are.
It shouldn’t matter who these people’s parents are, or how much money they happen to have. If they are not qualified for that position then why should they be given it? If they earn their position, that’s entirely different, they’ve earned it.
I don’t know about others, but this entitlement attitude and system rubs against me wrong.

Well, it's simple:

If it's public position, then absolutely, all kind of 'friends and relations' should be scrutinized, according to rules society had come up with trough the centuries.

If it's private position, then people who own/govern it can give it to whoever they want. Their risk/gain.

And people will naturally favor their children etc. from obvious reasons.

[Arcanist]

Reporter: “so what are your views of the current state of affairs?”
Baby: “whaaaaah, whaaaaaah”.
Reporter: “ahh I see”

"Their new leader is weak! Now is the time to attack!" :smalltongue:

I don't really care for the baby, hell I didn't care when they got married. I would like more media coverage on some other things, but people like what they like so let them have their little fun; More or less, this is all for tradition and in the coming months the only negative side effect of this all will be that certain events received less attention than they should have.

[Traab]

*EDIT* Bah, read through the first page and all points were answered.

[TheThan]

Well, it's simple:

If it's public position, then absolutely, all kind of 'friends and relations' should be scrutinized, according to rules society had come up with trough the centuries.

If it's private position, then people who own/govern it can give it to whoever they want. Their risk/gain.

And people will naturally favor their children etc. from obvious reasons.

That's the problem, is a lot of these people are given public and even private positions of power. Some scrutinize, but not enough care anymore to try to do anything about it. The people who feel their entitled typically feel they are superior to others just because of who daddy is.

I have no problems with a rich Heiress or someone that inherited a lot of money from their families. As long as they're relatively unimportant. It rubs me wrong when they have both power, privilege and wealth without having actually earned it.

I'm glad I don't live in a monarchy.

[Togath]

That's the problem, is a lot of these people are given public and even private positions of power. Some scrutinize, but not enough care anymore to try to do anything about it. The people who feel their entitled typically feel they are superior to others just because of who daddy is.

I have no problems with a rich Heiress or someone that inherited a lot of money from their families. As long as they're relatively unimportant. It rubs me wrong when they have both power, privilege and wealth without having actually earned it.

I'm glad I don't live in a monarchy.

Aye, I feel the same way.

[Imperial Psycho]

That's the problem, is a lot of these people are given public and even private positions of power. Some scrutinize, but not enough care anymore to try to do anything about it. The people who feel their entitled typically feel they are superior to others just because of who daddy is.

I have no problems with a rich Heiress or someone that inherited a lot of money from their families. As long as they're relatively unimportant. It rubs me wrong when they have both power, privilege and wealth without having actually earned it.

I'm glad I don't live in a monarchy.

Power is not a thing the monarchy really has. Their position is prestigious, and they are certainly flush with wealth and privilege, but the monarchy itself has very little de facto power these days.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Real world politics is an Inappropriate Topic on this forum. Thread locked for review.