woolybanana Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 That is the heir to the heir to the heir, isnt it. And another royal mouth to feed. Still, it will at least ensure the succession for a bit yet. And keep President Blair at bay a little longer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5-element Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 OMG Wooly, on seeing the heading I thought you were announcing imminent grandfatherhood for yourself. Is it true that she is carrying twins, or is that a canular? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted December 3, 2012 Author Share Posted December 3, 2012 I havent looked to see what she has!As to grandfatherhood, that happened to me on 5th November. Not sure I like the idea yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederick Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 [quote user="woolybanana"]That is the heir to the heir to the heir, isnt it. And another royal mouth to feed. Still, it will at least ensure the succession for a bit yet. And keep President Blair at bay a little longer![/quote] And Military quarters come with a free cot stair gate and a new cot matress ! She' s a very lucky girl ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idun Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 As I was stuck in traffic last week, I tried to work out who'd king or queen if William didn't have any kids........ well Harry....... but if he didn't, then we're back to who? Anne or Andrew, and if it were Andrew, then one of his girls would be Queen, Beatrice? not even the prettier one! What an idea. In fact could Peter Phillips have become King, what with not being titled? And then it was my turn to move through the deepish water, we had been going through one car at a time. We were not flooded and I can but feel for the poor souls who have. It was bad enough getting about last week. And now it looks like William will have an heir, but as they say, early days yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5-element Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 [quote user="woolybanana"]As to grandfatherhood, that happened to me on 5th November. Not sure I like the idea yet.[/quote]Ouh, congratulations! You will go gaga over the little one, that seems to be the fate of grandparents. Everyone knows that every grandchild is a perfect being.[:D]As for the royal couple, I don't really understand how it could have been announced days ago in the French press (on the news?) and I am SURE I was not dreaming when I heard she was expecting twins, except that I haven't heard it again... so perhaps it was a throwaway comment said in jest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I think there is a theory that twins can cause the extreme hormonal changes that result in this early debilitating sickness, but as far as I know it is just a theory as yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerdesal Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 ''I don't really understand how it could have been announced days ago in the French press (on the news?) and I am SURE I was not dreaming when I heard she was expecting twins, except that I haven't heard it again... so perhaps it was a throwaway comment said in jest.''It was press speculation, in the hope of selling more copy.There is no way on earth that the press could possibly know, in advance of the official announcement, of the positive pregnancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NormanH Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 It all just goes to show the silliness of hereditary monarchy.If they are twins one will be heir on the basis of a few minutes.While I loath the principle I wish the mother much happiness as I would any other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5-element Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 There you go http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2205745/Did-U-S-magazine-Photoshop-baby-bump-Duchess-Cambridges-body.html at least I wasn't hallucinating when I heard about twins! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted December 4, 2012 Author Share Posted December 4, 2012 Perhaps we might choose some names? I think Norman for a boy and Kevina for a girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NormanH Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I have to say that King Norman does have a certain je ne sais quoi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted December 4, 2012 Author Share Posted December 4, 2012 The word you are looking for is 'unspeakable'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gardengirl Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I wish them all well, but oh dear, the media will speak of little else for ages! What a pity they couldn't have just had the doctor put a drip in for her at Windsor or somewhere, and let everyone think she just had a chill or something for a short while. Maybe they could have kept it a secret for a little longer.I did fear when I saw a picture of Catherine with her new hair style that she was going to retreat behind it and look up at the cameras with doe-eyes like Diana used to.My other thoughts when I heard the news were for that poor Japanese Crown Princess, who couldn't give birth to a male heir, 'only' a female. She apparently had a nervous breakdown and is in a fragile state. Apparently whatever sex the new royal baby is, s/he will be the heir/ess to the throne, thank goodness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frecossais Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 [quote user="NormanH"]It all just goes to show the silliness of hereditary monarchy.If they are twins one will be heir on the basis of a few minutes.While I loath the principle I wish the mother much happiness as I would any other.[/quote]Well, a hereditary monarchy saves us from having to vote.[:P]And just look at the choices voters were given in the USA, France and UK at their last elections! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NormanH Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 True, but would anyone vote for Charles and Camilla? [:P] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I guess it depends who the other choices were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judith Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 [quote user="NormanH"]It all just goes to show the silliness of hereditary monarchy.If they are twins one will be heir on the basis of a few minutes.While I loath the principle I wish the mother much happiness as I would any other.[/quote]Now, now Norman - it's not their fault!I can speak from experience as a multiple - threesome. I only realised when I went to get my first marriage stuff sorted, why I had a time on my birth certificate ... oh, are you a twin - no, a triplet - why - it is only with multiple births that times are placed on certificates - all to do with primo-geniture.Whether you like it or not - it's what happens, and has happened over the centuries.And most multiple births are rather proud of the fact, I can tell you!(And it my day it was all au naturel - my poor mother - a ready made family all at once!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Ceour de Lion II Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 [quote user="Russethouse"]I guess it depends who the other choices were.[/quote]President Blair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Ceour de Lion II Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 [quote user="Russethouse"]I guess it depends who the other choices were.[/quote]President Blair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted December 4, 2012 Author Share Posted December 4, 2012 Yes, Richard, it is enough to make me shake too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Ceour de Lion II Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I'm sorry it posted twice. Been having posting issues on here today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thibault Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 [quote user="NormanH"]It all just goes to show the silliness of hereditary monarchy.If they are twins one will be heir on the basis of a few minutes.While I loath the principle I wish the mother much happiness as I would any other.[/quote] In a way, it's no sillier than someone winning an election by one or two votes, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YCCMB Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 It's only silly if it matters. Frankly, if Charmaine, the dancing pygmy hippo became our next monarch, what exactly would it change? OK, for Charmaine, they might have to reinforce the odd palace balcony and the suspension in the state coach, but other than that....Let's face it, if they didn't exist, republicans would have to find someone else to hate.[:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.