Charlotte Elizabeth Diana

My missus and I think we are losing our marbles but we are convinced that there was something on FB several days before the official birth saying that the royal couple had a baby girl and her name was Charlotte. We were surprised that there was nothing on the news later that night. Now the Ruskis are saying there is a conspiracy and that a) the birth was earlier and b) she was never pregnant and it was a surrogate birth. Pap, help!!!

Lots of late money for the bookies - was definitely leaks and some were in the know.

Maybe the birth was a few hours earlier than officially reported, in order for Kate to come out looking happier and fresher for the cameras. Is that really a conspiracy? I mean who actually gives a sh*t?

The Royals would have known it was a girl months ago and probably have been decided on the name for a while. The idea that it got leaked and ended up on Facebook somewhere, before the birth, isn't all that extraordinary either.

Lizards you see. A birth and a hatching are very different and it can cause confusion with what you count as the actual birth.

Lizards you see. A birth and a hatching are very different and it can cause confusion with what you count as the actual birth.

Princess Lottie Lizzie Di or better still Princess CED!!

Unfortunate choice of name............will forever be known as Charlotte the Harl*t.........

Only a matter of time before the Sun posts a 'countdown 'till she's legal'

As I camped outside the hospital for ten days in my homemade Union Jack suit, clutching my latest Royal scrapbook, holding the present that I'd painstakingly made for strangers, it suddenly dawned on me that I really needed to be sectioned rather than on TV giving my views.

Talking of all the lovely gifts, why is there a really big bonfire burning day and night behind Kensington Palace?

Been trying to see if I could give less of a ****, but it seems impossible.

 

This.

Other than keeping the paparazzi in employment, and helping a proportion of the nation's teenage boys to successful wet dreams, what will she contribute ?

This.

Other than keeping the paparazzi in employment, and helping a proportion of the nation's teenage boys to successful wet dreams, what will she contribute ?

Yes quite right.

New born babies - Humanity can certainly do without any more of them!

Yes quite right.

 

New born babies - Humanity can certainly do without any more of them!

There are feckless waistrels at the bottom of the social pecking order, and there are pointless, over privileged, faux-celebrities at the top.

This.

Other than keeping the paparazzi in employment, and helping a proportion of the nation's teenage boys to successful wet dreams, what will she contribute ?

Well, isn't that the primary purpose of all women?

There are feckless waistrels at the bottom of the social pecking order, and there are pointless, over privileged, faux-celebrities at the top.

So there is no chance then of you allowing this little girl to grow up and show the world what she has to offer it, before criticizing her on the basis of what her parents are?

Nope, thought not.

So there is no chance then of you allowing this little girl to grow up and show the world what she has to offer it, before criticizing her on the basis of what her parents are?

 

Nope, thought not.

If she wishes to live her life quietly and productively, she is welcome to do so. The problem is she won't be allowed to because of the industry looking for every profit making opportunity she will endow; the media frenzy that operates around the 'majesty' and 'history' into which she has been born; and the blind, unthinking, subservience that the Monarchy installs into many of the populace.

Maybe the birth was a few hours earlier than officially reported, in order for Kate to come out looking happier and fresher for the cameras. Is that really a conspiracy? I mean who actually gives a sh*t?

 

The Royals would have known it was a girl months ago and probably have been decided on the name for a while. The idea that it got leaked and ended up on Facebook somewhere, before the birth, isn't all that extraordinary either.

The people who betted on the date and time of the birth might have something to say about it. What is interesting is that the Russians are saying that Kate wasn't pregnant at all and that the baby was born by a surrogate mother!!! They say the baby didn't look new born and that Kate was looking far too fresh. Gotta love those Reds. Anyway, the thing we saw on FB was several days before the birth, not a few hours.

The people who betted on the date and time of the birth might have something to say about it. What is interesting is that the Russians are saying that Kate wasn't pregnant at all and that the baby was born by a surrogate mother!!! They say the baby didn't look new born and that Kate was looking far too fresh. Gotta love those Reds. Anyway, the thing we saw on FB was several days before the birth, not a few hours.

Up until the early 20th century, the Home Secretary was required to be present at royal births to prevent the newborn being swapped for another (eg a boy for a girl).

If she wishes to live her life quietly and productively, she is welcome to do so. The problem is she won't be allowed to because of the industry looking for every profit making opportunity she will endow; the media frenzy that operates around the 'majesty' and 'history' into which she has been born; and the blind, unthinking, subservience that the Monarchy installs into many of the populace.

The 'thing' about babies is that even the most loving and attentive of parents never quite know how they will turn out - your cynical depiction of her future as if that was preordained is mere speculation. I would hope that most reasonable Human Beings would welcome any little baby into the world and wish them well, rather than employ the mere fact of their birth as a (incredibly churlish) opportunity to attack a Royal Family they don't happen to approve of.

Please explain how the attitude you have displayed on here towards baby Charlotte differs fundamentally from any other form of prejudice?

 

Please explain how the attitude you have displayed on here towards baby Charlotte differs fundamentally from any other form of prejudice?

It doesn't ! I'm a staunch republican, and as far as I'm concerned they are all a waste of space. The only thing that the Queen achieves is to keep her idiot son off the throne.

My missus and I think we are losing our marbles but we are convinced that there was something on FB several days before the official birth saying that the royal couple had a baby girl and her name was Charlotte. We were surprised that there was nothing on the news later that night. Now the Ruskis are saying there is a conspiracy and that a) the birth was earlier and b) she was never pregnant and it was a surrogate birth. Pap, help!!!

If you are looking for a book to read take a look at the very last James Herbert book called Ash............. Bit of similar brain tease towards the end and a good read with it.

(drum roll)

I like all three of those names. My daughter has one of them as a first name.

If she wishes to live her life quietly and productively, she is welcome to do so. The problem is she won't be allowed to because of the industry looking for every profit making opportunity she will endow; the media frenzy that operates around the 'majesty' and 'history' into which she has been born; and the blind, unthinking, subservience that the Monarchy installs into many of the populace.

So blame the 'industry' not a 3 day old baby. She's got no choice.

Plus her parents are hardly fame hungry.

It doesn't ! I'm a staunch republican, and as far as I'm concerned they are all a waste of space. The only thing that the Queen achieves is to keep her idiot son off the throne.

Well, that's fine. But you didn't say that. You said her only contribution will be to give teenage boys wet dreams. Which doesn't give the impression of someone particularly enlightened.

Much rather a head of state who is born to the position and sees the role as a duty, than a politician who craves the role for the position it gives them

We have enough self serving gits in the palace of Westminster without infesting the other palaces with them.

(drum roll)

 

I like all three of those names. My daughter has one of them as a first name.

That's fair enough but I really wish they'd kept the name Diana out of it. Apologies if your daughter is called Diana but I'm hedging my bets on Elizabeth being her name..

That's fair enough but I really wish they'd kept the name Diana out of it. Apologies if your daughter is called Diana but I'm hedging my bets on Elizabeth being her name..

Elizabeth Taylor? That's inviting trouble

I don't blame them for putting Diana in the name at all. It's what families do to honour their lost ones. My first kid has my nan's first name as a middle name, and I've always liked that decision.

On the Royal subject, my position is basically this. I like Kings, Queens and all that stuff. It stops us from being a dirty republic like the French. The pomp and pageantry are ace, and I'm sure that supporters of the monarchy as constituted are correct when they say that it brings money into the country.

What I don't like is the way our heads of state are selected. Born to the right womb was never a wholly superb way to pick a head of state, which is why other countries abandoned it or just never implemented it, and others, like us, have pushed it to the side when it comes to the big stuff, like making law. It makes for interesting historical reading, but in practice, you get a mad king, a dim king, an overly pious king, a tyrant. It's all a shot in the dark, which is why we've mitigated it with constitutional democracy and restricting Royals to a ceremonial role. How ceremonial that is would seem to be a matter for some question; I'll guess we'll find out when Charles takes the throne

The big problem I have with the monarchy is twofold, but amounts to the same thing. My kid, much as she might proclaim it, can never be Queen of this country. In this age where we're all seeking equality, it's the inviolable apex of the class system. My view is that it should be the apex of the honours system, recognition of those who have done great works for their country, irrespective of the womb they sprung from. Take the inheritance angle out of the question, make the identification of candidates and selection a national debate and hand out terms of 20 years or so, renewable if they turn out to be a bloody good King or Queen.

It's not a popular view, but I reckon it's a way to align our traditions with our values without the grubby spectacle of an election, that could possibly inspire a great deal of philanthropy

You surprise me Pap. I wasn't expecting you to be such a romantic.

I genuinely have no opinion on it apart from I hate posh accents, and no money would be enough to persuade me to ever do that role. I don't see it as an equality, issue because I don't see it as an opportunity - more like a jail sentence!

Elizabeth Taylor? That's inviting trouble

 

I don't blame them for putting Diana in the name at all. It's what families do to honour their lost ones. My first kid has my nan's first name as a middle name, and I've always liked that decision.

True. My daughter is well cheesed off but Fluffy Tyson she is.

You surprise me Pap. I wasn't expecting you to be such a romantic.

 

I genuinely have no opinion on it apart from I hate posh accents, and no money would be enough to persuade me to ever do that role. I don't see it as an equality, issue because I don't see it as an opportunity - more like a jail sentence!

It is very much I position I've evolved to, based on what is actually realistic on such an entrenched issue. Going Romanov isn't really all that glamourous. History doesn't regard that sort of thing well, but there are a significant proportion of the population that'll never be happy without a monarch. It's something the Americans don't got, so in lieu of oblivion, I'd go for an upgrade and change the rules of succession.

The big problem I have with the monarchy is twofold, but amounts to the same thing. My kid, much as she might proclaim it, can never be Queen of this country.

Erm isn't that ur own fault for not fucking the Queen? Genuine question no trolls pls

It is very much I position I've evolved to, based on what is actually realistic on such an entrenched issue. Going Romanov isn't really all that glamourous. History doesn't regard that sort of thing well, but there are a significant proportion of the population that'll never be happy without a monarch. It's something the Americans don't got, so in lieu of oblivion, I'd go for an upgrade and change the rules of succession.

Yeah, I get that. I think that's basically how I feel. I can't be bothered by the effort involved to change it, and I like the fact that all the Americans like it.

True. My daughter is well cheesed off but Fluffy Tyson she is.

Your Nan had an odd name!

Your Nan had an odd name!

Just honouring our lost ones JB. At least she wasn't Moby Bubbles.

On a side note, a friend of mine has kids with the same names as our ex chickens: Sam n' Ella. She's Dutch and didn't get it.

Yeah, I get that. I think that's basically how I feel. I can't be bothered by the effort involved to change it, and I like the fact that all the Americans like it.

That's because its in the entertainment section of the news..............along with Kim K etc.............

Going Romanov isn't really all that glamourous.

I humbly disagree

You surprise me Pap. I wasn't expecting you to be such a romantic.

 

I genuinely have no opinion on it apart from I hate posh accents, and no money would be enough to persuade me to ever do that role. I don't see it as an equality, issue because I don't see it as an opportunity - more like a jail sentence!

Jail sentence sums up how I see it. The Queen has been a magnificent servant to this country but who really would swap lives with her?What a ballachingly boring existence. I'd happy keep the Monarchy (without Charles) if for no better reason than we breed people for the role and they grow up expecting this kind of life. I would never vote for anyone who wanted to do it willingly! As for the Civil List, get rid of it. We should pay for the immediate Royals and the rest should get jobs.

Just honouring our lost ones JB. At least she wasn't Moby Bubbles.

On a side note, a friend of mine has kids with the same names as our ex chickens: Sam n' Ella. She's Dutch and didn't get it.

When I was young my parents got us 2 rabbits, a black one and a white one, they were called Smith and Mugabe...

Which one was which?

Cross posting :-)

http://charles-hrh.com/2015/05/05/ones-letter-to-princess-charlotte/

I have a bird's nest on my front porch with hatchlings that I am much more interested in.

This post was brought to you by the makers of Inevitable Negative Posts. Purveyors of trollish posts since the dawn of the internet.

I have a bird's nest on my front porch with hatchlings that I am much more interested in.

 

This post was brought to you by the makers of Inevitable Negative Posts. Purveyors of trollish posts since the dawn of the internet.

Me too, 7 in all - great to watch

I humbly disagree

 

Yeah, I think I'd take the Amy Pond line on this (as established by Richard Herring).

I'd do the character, but not the actor who plays her. Scarlett would have to remain in character throughout as Natasha Romanov, and not sell her soul for money she doesn't need hawking Soda Stream products produced in the occupied terrorities.

On the Royal subject, my position is basically this. I like Kings, Queens and all that stuff. It stops us from being a dirty republic like the French. The pomp and pageantry are ace, and I'm sure that supporters of the monarchy as constituted are correct when they say that it brings money into the country.

 

What I don't like is the way our heads of state are selected. Born to the right womb was never a wholly superb way to pick a head of state, which is why other countries abandoned it or just never implemented it, and others, like us, have pushed it to the side when it comes to the big stuff, like making law. It makes for interesting historical reading, but in practice, you get a mad king, a dim king, an overly pious king, a tyrant. It's all a shot in the dark, which is why we've mitigated it with constitutional democracy and restricting Royals to a ceremonial role. How ceremonial that is would seem to be a matter for some question; I'll guess we'll find out when Charles takes the throne

 

The big problem I have with the monarchy is twofold, but amounts to the same thing. My kid, much as she might proclaim it, can never be Queen of this country. In this age where we're all seeking equality, it's the inviolable apex of the class system. My view is that it should be the apex of the honours system, recognition of those who have done great works for their country, irrespective of the womb they sprung from. Take the inheritance angle out of the question, make the identification of candidates and selection a national debate and hand out terms of 20 years or so, renewable if they turn out to be a bloody good King or Queen.

 

It's not a popular view, but I reckon it's a way to align our traditions with our values without the grubby spectacle of an election, that could possibly inspire a great deal of philanthropy

I agree with the principle of what you are saying but in practice you will get some superannuated politician.

Nay forget what I was gonna say...........

Well, that's fine. But you didn't say that. You said her only contribution will be to give teenage boys wet dreams. Which doesn't give the impression of someone particularly enlightened.

I cant think of many Royals who would give anyone wet dreams (nightmares perhaps). The exception being Camilla and Charles of course. No doubt he probably thought of her when William and Harry were conceived. They may have privilege but the Royals have pretty much all fallen out of the Ugly Tree.

If you are looking for a book to read take a look at the very last James Herbert book called Ash............. Bit of similar brain tease towards the end and a good read with it.

Will do and thanks for the tip JBS.

I cant think of many Royals who would give anyone wet dreams (nightmares perhaps). The exception being Camilla and Charles of course. No doubt he probably thought of her when William and Harry were conceived. They may have privilege but the Royals have pretty much all fallen out of the Ugly Tree.

The Queen was a hottie when she was young.

The Queen was a hottie when she was young.

 

A Hottie