Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

United Kingdom Changes It's Rules of Succession

User avatar
LoveHistory
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3751
Joined: September 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Post by LoveHistory » Tue December 4th, 2012, 10:55 pm

Been watching the comments on Yahoo! articles and it's rather disturbing the way people act online. 90% of the comments fall into one of two categories: royal haters (oddly mostly Americans) and Diana worshipers. Neither take kindly to being opposed or corrected. One idiot was talking about how this is why we fought to revolution. Yeah, sure, I remember the article of the constitution that deals with baby names.

User avatar
Divia
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 4435
Joined: August 2008
Location: Always Cloudy, Central New York

Post by Divia » Tue December 4th, 2012, 10:56 pm

[quote=""SonjaMarie""]Seems it'll be the age of the Queens eventually.

SM[/quote]

That is super awesome!!!!


I can't believe they are already speculating that its twins. :rolleyes: I mean common seriously.
News, views, and reviews on books and graphic novels for young adult.
http://yabookmarks.blogspot.com/

User avatar
SonjaMarie
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 5688
Joined: August 2008
Location: Vashon, WA
Contact:

Post by SonjaMarie » Wed December 5th, 2012, 3:08 am

[quote=""Divia""]That is super awesome!!!!


I can't believe they are already speculating that its twins. :rolleyes: I mean common seriously.[/quote]

I guess this kind of extreme morning sickness can be a sign of it, but not being a birth mother, I wouldn't know. Harm, if she ever has children, could possibly have twins, as her mother's first pregnancy was fraternal twins.

SM
The Lady Jane Grey Internet Museum
My Booksfree Queue

Original Join Date: Mar 2006
Previous Amount of Posts: 2,517
Books Read In 2014: 109 - June: 17 (May: 17)
Full List Here: http://www.historicalfictiononline.com/ ... p?p=114965

User avatar
SonjaMarie
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 5688
Joined: August 2008
Location: Vashon, WA
Contact:

Post by SonjaMarie » Wed December 5th, 2012, 3:49 am

I'm reading "Imperial Requiem: Four Royal Women and the Fall of the Age of Empires" by Justin C. Vovk (good book) and it had me wondering why, if George VI was so beloved, why didn't any of his children, or grandchildren name their children George or his real first name Albert. Maybe if William and Kate have a son, this time or eventually, that'll change.

SM
The Lady Jane Grey Internet Museum
My Booksfree Queue

Original Join Date: Mar 2006
Previous Amount of Posts: 2,517
Books Read In 2014: 109 - June: 17 (May: 17)
Full List Here: http://www.historicalfictiononline.com/ ... p?p=114965

User avatar
Lisa
Bibliophile
Posts: 1153
Joined: August 2012
Favourite HF book: Here Be Dragons by Sharon Kay Penman
Preferred HF: Any time period/location. Timeslip, usually prefer female POV. Also love Gothic melodrama.
Location: Northeast Scotland

Post by Lisa » Wed December 5th, 2012, 11:27 am

[quote=""SonjaMarie""]if George VI was so beloved, why didn't any of his children, or grandchildren name their children George or his real first name Albert. Maybe if William and Kate have a son, this time or eventually, that'll change.[/quote]

Good point, although both names are now considered quite old-fashioned now in the UK - they may just get delegated to middle names. I'm curious to see if they go with a traditional or modern name - I suppose they'll find something in between (traditional name not considered old-fashioned), like Elizabeth or James. The bookmakers are probably taking bets on this already...

User avatar
Brenna
Bibliophile
Posts: 1358
Joined: June 2010
Location: Delaware

Post by Brenna » Wed December 5th, 2012, 2:45 pm

[quote=""LoveHistory""]Been watching the comments on Yahoo! articles and it's rather disturbing the way people act online. 90% of the comments fall into one of two categories: royal haters (oddly mostly Americans) and Diana worshipers. Neither take kindly to being opposed or corrected. One idiot was talking about how this is why we fought to revolution. Yeah, sure, I remember the article of the constitution that deals with baby names.[/quote]

Thank you for the hysterical laughing fit I just had. I needed it this morning!
Brenna

User avatar
Lisa
Bibliophile
Posts: 1153
Joined: August 2012
Favourite HF book: Here Be Dragons by Sharon Kay Penman
Preferred HF: Any time period/location. Timeslip, usually prefer female POV. Also love Gothic melodrama.
Location: Northeast Scotland

Post by Lisa » Wed December 5th, 2012, 2:46 pm

Well this is the funniest story I've read today...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20610197

Australian radio DJs made a hoax call to the hospital Kate is being treated at, pretending to be the Queen and Prince Charles. They got through, and got medical information about Kate. Apparently they had poor accents and someone was yapping in the background pretending to be one of the Queen's Corgis. Cannot believe that worked.

ETA there's actually a recording of the first part of the call on there now - that accent is really bad! And really, the "Queen" asks "May I speak to Kate, my granddaughter?"
Last edited by Lisa on Wed December 5th, 2012, 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
LoveHistory
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3751
Joined: September 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Post by LoveHistory » Fri December 7th, 2012, 2:21 am

[quote=""SonjaMarie""]I'm reading "Imperial Requiem: Four Royal Women and the Fall of the Age of Empires" by Justin C. Vovk (good book) and it had me wondering why, if George VI was so beloved, why didn't any of his children, or grandchildren name their children George or his real first name Albert. Maybe if William and Kate have a son, this time or eventually, that'll change.

SM[/quote]

Charles' full name is Charles Philip Arthur George.

Andrew's is Andrew Albert Christian Edward

And Henry's is Henry Charles Albert David.
Last edited by LoveHistory on Fri December 7th, 2012, 2:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
LoveHistory
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3751
Joined: September 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Post by LoveHistory » Fri December 7th, 2012, 2:23 am

Don't know where the twins idea came from. I was almost hospitalized with hyperemesis during my first pregnancy, and my oldest sister actually was. Really awful morning sickness seems to run in our family. But no twins as a result.

The theory probably has something to do with the idea of twice as many hormones going through the system. Some people refer to morning sickness as progesterone poisoning.

User avatar
Mythica
Bibliophile
Posts: 1095
Joined: November 2010
Preferred HF: European and American (mostly pre-20th century)
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Post by Mythica » Fri December 7th, 2012, 9:32 am

Regarding the succession, I've always wondered what would happen if William and Kate couldn't have children but adopted? Traditionally, I would assume that not being of the royal bloodline, they would not be able to succeed - but today, that would be so hugely politically incorrect because it suggests that an adopted child is not their "real" child. Ethically, should an adopted child be able to inherit the throne?

Post Reply

Return to “Chat”