Girl for Kate and William (and Charles)

Grandfather Charles got the granddaughter he told people he was hoping for. (And the 7 of you who guessed it would be a girl in the poll were right.)

Anyone have any nice suggestions for names for a girl? I think there are so many pretty names in the historic English/Scottish/British royal history, and I hope they use some of them.

Other royal births that took place on this date:
1458 – Eleanor of Viseu (d. 1525)
1729 – Catherine the Great, (d. 1796)
1896 – Helen of Greece and Denmark (d. 1982)
1975 – Nathalie, Princess zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg

May 2. was the wedding day of Léopold of Saxe-Coburg and Princess Charlotte Augusta of Wales in 1816.

The Duchess of Cambridge is expecting another baby

According to a press release from Clarence House:

Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are very pleased to announce that The Duchess of Cambridge is expecting their second child.

The Queen and members of both families are delighted with the news.

As with her first pregnancy, The Duchess is suffering from Hyperemesis Gravidarum. Her Royal Highness will no longer accompany The Duke of Cambridge on their planned engagement in Oxford today. The Duchess of Cambridge is being treated by doctors at Kensington Palace.

Babies are fun. Throwing up for the length of the pregnancy is probably not.

Prince George

He’s now more than a week old, Prince George of Cambridge. He’s also the most talked about baby globally for quite some time.

Frankly, I haven’t bothered posting about him before, because it seemed like there was a huge overload of it. I especially liked the Huffington Post’s spoof headline: Woman gives birth to baby.

What I was disappointed in, as a royal watcher, after the birth was the fact that they sent out a press release before they sent out the traditional easel in front of Buckingham Palace. Stick to tradition, please.

His name.  Good that the parents could survive figuring out how many names he needed. Really. George Alexander Louis. I’m not too keen on the Louis part of it. I get that it is one of the names of Prince Charles, as well as from Louis Mountbatten, and one of the Spencer cousins is also called Louis. Unless he plans to conquer France – I don’t see the point of a British king (assuming he gets that far) being named a French royal name.  Less than interesting tidbit, his initials are GAL – which in Norwegian means crazy.

There has also been mutterings in the media that we won’t get to see him as King, because it is so far in the future.

Never say never. The whole reason for having a line of succession longer than two people is that people die. Slight exaggeration there. But Frederick, Prince of Wales, died in 1751 – nine years before his father, and never ascended to the throne.

I actually think I am more interested in the theoretical and historical side of it rather than the actual royal baby.

“Duke and Duchess’s child to be first Prince or Princess of Cambridge”

I have this from The Telegraph, but have also seen similar stories all over the place, which leads me to believe that the wording comes straight from a press release or a courtier rather than something the media invented themselves.

Apparently, Buckingham Palace has announced that the child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will be the first ever HRH Prince/Princess of Cambridge. Much in the same vein that the Duke was HRH Prince William of Wales after his father’s title and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are “of York,” no?

In the Mirror, a former mayor of Cambridge chimes in with: “There were some dukes of Cambridge but not a prince or princess.”

I’m sure Princess Augusta of Cambridge, Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge and Prince George of Cambridge (later 2nd Duke of Cambridge) would be rolling around in their graves, so to speak.

It seems both Buckingham Palace aides and royal journalists could do with a spot of royal history lessons.

Especially when one considers that Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge was mother of Queen Mary, and the great grandmother to Queen Elizabeth II – the same role Queen Elizabeth II will have to the unborn child.

William and Kate

And so, less than five months after the big Crown Princess wedding in Sweden, the time has come for William and Kate (or Catherine as Clarence house called her in the announcement).

Unlike Daniel and Victoria, there won’t be a year and half of engagement time. The couple will marry next year in the spring or summer. Incidentally, would it have been so hard to set a date before sending out the announcement? One hopes that the health of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh holds up until then, anyway.

As William isn’t yet the first in line, Kate’s position won’t be the same as Diana. There is already someone in that spot. Furthermore, unlike Diana, she has grown up in a time where there aren’t all that many secrets left regarding the Family, as well as being quite a bit older than Diana was. The twosome will start out living in Wales, due to William’s training, so a bit more space than just hanging about in London.

I’ve already read comments that it was smart of them to wait until now, to avoid making the mistakes of his parents. Who certainly were good examples of how not to act in a royal marriage, no?

It can be debated again and again how/where/how much she should have been working prior to marriage, but with the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh being well past retirement age, and Charles and Camilla approaching retirement age… There should surely be enough work to hand around.

With the Olympics and the Diamond jubilee coming in 2012, this seems like the ideal time to have a royal wedding. The Queen will surely have to foot a large portion of the cost, given the current cuts in everything, but it should also be an event bringing in the cash to Britain.

An engagement is a happy occasion. Even when one says yes to living on diaplay for the rest of her life.

Best of luck to them both.