People moaning about the Royal Baby

paulineb_2

jetplane wrote: »

Oh no they've called him George, I'm disappointed as there are more modern royal names, James or Alexander for example and they are young modern royals. Surely Kate didn't choose that

I mean
George osborne yuk
or
George pig peppas' brother
or
George Michael

The middle names are better than the first name

Sorry to any Georges out there, but Louis would have been a good choice I think

Wonder what Zara will call hers, as she doesnt have a royal title, shes free to be as funky as she likes.

KxMx

Never would have been James, it gets shortened to Jim these days and that wouldn't have done
I have noticed a trend for some of the more old fashioned names coming back into fashion so I like it personally.

Errata wrote: »

She's the daughter of millionaires, went to public school - all very normal - started dating him in 2002 and hung on like grim death until she got him to the altar.
She wasn't known as one of the Wisteria Sisters for nothing.

You seem to have omitted that her parents had normal jobs and then started their own business, and became so wealthy through sheer hard work, their multi million pound business was started on the kitchen table! There are many brit entrepreneurs who have done similar and they are admired. But because it's Kate's parents they get scorned and looked down upon.

They also split up at one point and she certainly got on with life without him.
On and as for the wisteria comment, every well to do family with a daughter of marriageable age was wanting to be in her shoes. So along comes Kate of course they are jealous and find the silly names etc to call her and pick holes in her parents.. Because it wasn't their daughter/sister/niece who caught the eye of the most eligible bachelor in England.

There were complaints about Diana being a Lady and not a commoner. Now there are complaints Kate is not a Lady. Jealousy and snobbery pure and simple.

mountainofdebt

KxMx wrote: »

Never would have been James, it gets shortened to Jim these days and that wouldn't have done
I have noticed a trend for some of the more old fashioned names coming back into fashion so I like it personally.

You seem to have omitted that her parents had normal jobs and then started their own business, and became so wealthy through sheer hard work, their multi million pound business was started on the kitchen table! There are many brit entrepreneurs who have done similar and they are admired. But because it's Kate's parents they get scorned and looked down upon.

They also split up at one point and she certainly got on with life without him.
On and as for the wisteria comment, every well to do family with a daughter of marriageable age was wanting to be in her shoes. So along comes Kate of course they are jealous and find the silly names etc to call her and pick holes in her parents.. Because it wasn't their daughter/sister/niece who caught the eye of the most eligible bachelor in England.

There were complaints about Diana being a Lady and not a commoner. Now there are complaints Kate is not a Lady. Jealousy and snobbery pure and simple.

I was convinced that, even before the baby was born that if it was a boy it would be named James - then someone in work pointed out that it would never be James if only because of the rumours of the parentage of Harry.

As for having a go at Kate because of her background, alot of his friends were kicked into touch because they made fun of it.

Personally I think Kate's biggest problems are a) the fact that she doesn't seem to have thrown herself into charity work even before she had the excuse of being pregnant and b) her sister who seems to court the media's attention

Shovel_Lad

KxMx wrote: »

Never would have been James, it gets shortened to Jim these days and that wouldn't have done

I was wondering about James but thought it unlikely as Prince Edward's son is James as is Catherine's brother.

Takeaway_Addict

jetplane wrote: »

Oh no they've called him George, I'm disappointed as there are more modern royal names, James or Alexander for example and they are young modern royals. Surely Kate didn't choose that

I mean
George osborne yuk
or
George DubbleU :eek:
or
George pig peppas' brother
or
George Michael

George Cloony....

Lou67

Errata wrote: »

She's the daughter of millionaires, went to public school - all very normal - started dating him in 2002 and hung on like grim death until she got him to the altar.
She wasn't known as one of the Wisteria Sisters for nothing.

What a load of rubbish! How people love to invent stories and events that never happened, to back up their views and opinions. :rotfl:

Lou67

Funky_Bold_Ribena wrote: »

The reports this week are about selling papers! It's in their interest to tell you that the royals are popular as it...sells more papers. What sucks for the anti royalists is the royals themselves, not the idiots who lap it all up.

Anti royalists aren't a dying breed, they are just quietly sticking knives in their hands to quell the pain of all the royal nonsense this week.

Yes they are. :j

Lou67

KxMx wrote: »

Never would have been James, it gets shortened to Jim these days and that wouldn't have done
I have noticed a trend for some of the more old fashioned names coming back into fashion so I like it personally.

You seem to have omitted that her parents had normal jobs and then started their own business, and became so wealthy through sheer hard work, their multi million pound business was started on the kitchen table! There are many brit entrepreneurs who have done similar and they are admired. But because it's Kate's parents they get scorned and looked down upon.

They also split up at one point and she certainly got on with life without him. On and as for the wisteria comment, every well to do family with a daughter of marriageable age was wanting to be in her shoes. So along comes Kate of course they are jealous and find the silly names etc to call her and pick holes in her parents.. Because it wasn't their daughter/sister/niece who caught the eye of the most eligible bachelor in England.

There were complaints about Diana being a Lady and not a commoner. Now there are complaints Kate is not a Lady. Jealousy and snobbery pure and simple.

AGREE totally :T

The bitterness and jealousy aimed at Kate on this thread from blojoman and others on here, and from other anti Royalists is laughable. :rotfl:

LOVE the paragraph that I bolded by the way

cloudy11

Lizzie-S wrote: »

Originally Posted by red devil :
if more young couples were like kate and william the world would be a better place. People could learn something from them?



Right with you both here^^^.

I absolutely love the Royals and I always have, and everyone in my family and circle of friends feels the same. I despair of the negativity and vitriol towards them, and quite honestly feel sorry for people with such hatred towards them. A person who has such contempt for someone who has done literally NOTHING to deserve it, is a sad soul indeed.

I would find it hard to be friends with someone who was horrible about the Royals. It would be a deal-breaker for me with any potential friend.

Seriously cannot be doing with anti-royalists. According to many reports this week though, anti royalists are a dying breed, and the Royals are more popular than they have ever been. Sucks for the anti-royalists.

You wouldn't be friends with someone just because they had a different opinion to you about the royal family?! Your circle of friends must be very restricted if there is no room for anyone with a different take on things.

My best friend is a complete royalist and also very religious. I am not, on either count But we respect our different opinions and focus on the stuff that we do have in common- surely that's what friends do?

I find your attitude completely bizarre.

kwmlondon

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I would hate to have servants and castles.

I do not envy them one bit.

I would absolutely hate to have to live with 24/7 protection. No amount of money etc. could ever compensate for that IMO.

I have worked all my life and have applied myself really hard. I feel I am 'king' in my own little world!

Yeah, but you're not. You - like every other person in the UK, is a subject of the queen. Any rights you have are purely at the sufferance of the monarch.

I really wish we could have a relationship with our royal family a bit more like the continental monarchs. Stop treating them like they are expected to be any better or worse than any of us, making ridiculous demands of them and imposing horrific conditions on them. Just have some people who represent a tradition and history we can celebrate, remove the connection between monarch and church and let them have some kind of normal life and stop making such a fuss about them.

I'm sure they are nice enough, it's just that either they are special people, appointed by god to rule over us and are our betters and masters, or they are just people like you and me who were born into a certain family. If it's the latter lets get over them a bit and give them a life, for goodness sake.