Wait until Kate starts posting the baby pics on facebook.
Declan
hopefully it doesn’t get too severe. it can be really tricky then. i worked with a woman who had hg pregs.
the first one she lost 40 lbs, the baby was born early weighed 3 pounds something. the second had to be aborted, her liver started failing. the third she lost 60 lbs and the baby was early and just a tiddle over 3 lbs.
she was unable to eat anything. they kept her going with ivs and she was in hospital for months. every now and again she would hold down a bite of something, but never anything substantial. just constant regurgitation, and nausea until the pregnancy was over.
i’m sure they will be watching kate with every “bing” machine around. she doesn’t look like she has much weight to lose.
No, that’s not what I meant. I was talking about the fact that ANY offspring of William’s – male or female – would outrank Harry. Not how the the crown would pass to William’s kids reguardless of gender. (As in, if he had a girl then a boy.) ANY child would be before Harry – period.
If it’s a boy - Dom Come
If it’s a girl - Freddie Mercury
Sure, nobody disputes that. What does this that you posted mean then?
No!! Maybe as a middle name, but otherwise, no!
One of my sisters had this during both her pregnancies.
During the first one she actually weighed 5 lbs less when she was wheeled into labor and delivery than before she became pregnant, she had essentially spent 9 months puking. Several of those months she was would have been severely dehydrated had she not been on an IV.
During her second pregnancy she managed to gain a couple pounds, but still threw up for about 7 of the 9 months, and spent a couple of them in the hospital.
Single births both times. The babies were fine, my sister not so much although she recovered. In the old days such a severe case would have meant death. It’s a bit rare to be that extreme, but at least these days the women survive.
I sincerely hope the Duchess doesn’t have such a bad pregnancy as my sister did.
Assuming the changes happen. They’re still in development hell right now.
Seriously, that sounds like a good name. Depending on how it goes though, it seems that a lot of them have four names before the Windsor.
As a bit of trivia, in S.M. Stirling’s alternate history book The Peshawar Lancers, which takes place in the year 2025, the genealogy of the royal family is different after George V, because of a natural disaster. In that history, in the year 1878, Earth was struck by a series of comet fragments, killing millions and altering the weather so drastically for several years, that civilization as we know it was changed. The British Empire is now centered in India.
So it went like this
Victoria I 1837-1882, to her son
Edward VII 1882-1900 to his son
George V 1900-1921 to his daughter
Victoria II, 1921-1942 to her cousin
Albert I 1942-1989 to his daughter
Elizabeth II 1989-2005, to her son
John II, 2005-2025, to his son
Charles III 2025-
The new monarch, Charles III, had three younger siblings, and their names show the blending of British and Indian culture. His sister Sita, an important character in the book, is Sita Mary Elizabeth Jandeen Victoria, of the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
I’d never before heard that Prince Charles has stated that he’ll be George VII when he takes the throne. That’s interesting. (I suppose it makes sense, but really, why’d they name him Charles in the first place if it was such a bad regnant name?)
King George (Charles) and (Queen) “Princess Regent” Camilla. What a pair they’ll make. LOL.
It’ll help if Camilla takes the name of Gracie.
Actually, I think that’s just anti-Stuart speculation. I think Charles and George are more likely regnant names than Philip or Arthur, and his grandfather Albert Frederick Arthur George used George. But it’s up to him, really, and he seems to have no official stance on what his regnant name will/would be.
King Ebenezer has a nice ring to it.
I like the name James for a boy. It’s a royal name, he would be James III one day, so he’d get an ordinal. And for those who say it’s ‘too Stuart’, Charles was a typically Stuart name as well, and so much for ‘its associated with a failure of a king’, the last king William was Victoria’s reprobate sailor uncle. Also, James comes with several good nicknames.
For a girl, I confess I like the idea of Victoria II, but if not that, what about Mary? A sweet name, and the name of two previous queens.
I like the idea of Charlotte or Caroline. A princess named Charlotte was heir presumptive in the early 19th century only to be killed while giving birth by an incompetent doctor. It was only because of her death that Victoria was born. Tragic really.
I meant, as of right now, until the laws are changed, a male child of William and Kate would outrank a female child – even if said girl was born first. Similiar to Queen Victoria’s children – her first child was a girl, Princess Victoria*. Her second was a boy, Prince Albert Victor, aka Edward VII. HE outranked his older sister. Which would be the case right now, until the law is changed.
*Later the Empress of Germany, and mother of the infamous Kaiser Wilhelm II.
Kate’s brother’s name is James. Would the Windsors go for the presumptive future king being named after the heir to a party supplies fortune?
What’s this “Princess Regent”? She’ll be a Queen Consort - and since William is most definitely of age to take over, there’s zero chance Camilla will ever be a regent.
He’d be James VIII, not James III. The Scottish ordinal takes precedence over the English one if it’s higher.
How so? James VI of Scotland became James I of England. He was the great-nephew of Henry VIII, and followed his first cousin, once removed, Elizabeth I.