Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Still Waters

Royal baby 'should be Princess of Wales'

72 posts in this topic

A daughter born to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge should be given the title Princess of Wales because the naming tradition should extend to girls, an MP will say today.

In a debate in the House of Commons on changing the rules of succession, Wayne David, the MP for Caerphilly, will call for the naming tradition to be extended to royal baby girls.

He said it would be an important gesture for the people of Wales now the Queen has confirmed a female child born to the royal couple will be a princess.

http://www.telegraph...s-of-Wales.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or we make them a normal family and stop this medieval foolishness.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would this matter to an MP? Or to anyone actually? These people (the royal family) actually believe they have thier position due to God's will, rather than because of the greed and ruthlessness of those they are descended from. Really? It was Gods will that a peice of human filth like Henry the VIII was the divine ruler of England? LOL!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or we make them a normal family and stop this medieval foolishness.

I was about to type something similar: Royal baby should be normal British citizen.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or we make them a normal family

They are the Royal Family. How can they be a normal family?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Royal baby should be normal British citizen.

The royal baby's father is a future king. The royal baby is therefore a future king or queen. Therefore the royal baby cannot be a "normal" person.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These people (the royal family) actually believe they have thier position due to God's will

Do they?

It was Gods will that a peice of human filth like Henry the VIII was the divine ruler of England?

Why was Henry VIII, one of England's greatest monarchs, a "piece of human filth"?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tumblr_m3be35GAXp1rtcfaqo1_500.gif

Oh John~ you just think that cause you're an American~

...actually I think that too...

Edited by Hasina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they?

Why was Henry VIII, one of England's greatest monarchs, a "piece of human filth"?

Because if you judged him by the same standards of behaviour that you judged any other person he would have been hanged, or like he had done to too many others, beheaded.

Lazygun I don't understand your apparent need to have a monarchy, or why you believe there are people better than you simply due to the fact that they were born into this world, but I honor your right to believe so and will not denegrate the royals further on this thread.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are the Royal Family. How can they be a normal family?

The royal baby's father is a future king. The royal baby is therefore a future king or queen. Therefore the royal baby cannot be a "normal" person.

Please tell me why they should be in this position then? And tell me why you think they are special? Cause all i see is average people. (in fact lower than average half of them look inbred.. oh wait they are that's why)

I love the fact they made Kate out to be a commoner when in fact she went to a very expansive private school. (Also isn't she related to the royal family as well?)

Edited by Coffey
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The royal baby's father is a future king. The royal baby is therefore a future king or queen. Therefore the royal baby cannot be a "normal" person.

*Woosh*

That was the point, flying over your head. The point being that all men should be (or in reality, are) born equal; that someone having the birthright of 'King' or 'Queen' is archaic and belongs in the distant past, nowhere near a modern democratic society.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Woosh*

That was the point, flying over your head. The point being that all men should be (or in reality, are) born equal; that someone having the birthright of 'King' or 'Queen' is archaic and belongs in the distant past, nowhere near a modern democratic society.

Unless they made the position open to anyone who challenges it.. lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because if you judged him by the same standards of behaviour that you judged any other person he would have been hanged

Please stop trying to impose 21st Century behaviour onto a 16th Century person. They were completely different times.

How many monarchs of that era married for love? There were hardly any. A monarch in those days married a woman for political reasons and to give himself an heir to the throne. Henry VIII was normal for those times.

Lazygun I don't understand your apparent need to have a monarchy

Why does the United States need to have a president?

or why you believe there are people better than you simply due to the fact that they were born into this world

Where have I said that there are people better than me just because they were born into a certain family?

but I honor your right to believe so and will not denegrate the royals further on this thread.

Good. Because the monarchy is a very popular institution in Britain and it's not making you very popular amongst British people when you denigrate it.

This thread, with its abundance of republicans, is unusual. It does not reflect Britain at large. Republicanism is almost non-existent in Britain.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me why they should be in this position then?

Because Britain is a constitutional monarchy.

And tell me why you think they are special?

I'd rather have a monarch as Head of State than a second-rate politician like Cameron, Clegg, Miliband or Obama. And I'm sure most Britons will agree with me.

half of them look inbred

Do they ACTUALLY look inbred or are you just seeing things?

I'd bet on the latter.

very expansive private school.

So just because her parents worked hard in good jobs and made a lot of money to be able to afford to give their daughters a good education makes them royals, does it?

[

Also isn't she related to the royal family as well?

Kate Middleton is the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-granddaughter of Henry VIII.

She is also the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-granddaughter of Edward III.

But that doesn't make her a royal and it certainly doesn't make her unique. There are lots of people in Britain desdended from royalty although most of us don't know it. Kate Middleton is just one of around 250,000 people in Britain descended from Edward III.

For all you know, Henry VIII, Edward III or some other royal could be an ancestor of you.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* that someone having the birthright of 'King' or 'Queen' is archaic and belongs in the distant past, nowhere near a modern democratic society.

It's a pity for you that hardly anyone in Britain agrees with you.

Give me a King or Queen as Head of State rather than some politician anyday of the week, thank you very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stop trying to impose 21st Century behaviour onto a 16th Century person. They were completely different times.

People should be judged by the era in which they live? Or in other words, they should be judged by their surrounding environment and culture, and not held to modern day Western standards?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got nothing against the Royals, the Queen (and Wills once he gets the job, I'm sure) are infinitely preferable to a power-hungry Politician or an incompetent bumbler like the present and the previous Prime Minister, but all this dickering about medieval titles and so on is all a bit of an irrelevance, isn't it. And all this nonsense about whether or not it should be illegal for a Catholic to be on the throne. These may have been importnat issues 300 years ago, but come on now. Rather like the Church of England, which just spends all its time bickering about whether women should be bishops.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People should be judged by the era in which they live? Or in other words, they should be judged by their surrounding environment and culture, and not held to modern day Western standards?

Henry VIII did abide by modern Western standards - those of the 16th Century in which he lived.

The era in which Henry VIII lived was a very different one to the 21st Century. Stop acting as though he was wrong to not abide by today's standards. He lived in the 16th Century when monarchs the world over married for political reasons or to give themselves a male heir. Stop trying to impose 21st Century standards onto someone who lived in the 16th Century.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a pity for you that hardly anyone in Britain agrees with you.

Give me a King or Queen as Head of State rather than some politician anyday of the week, thank you very much.

Aye, because having an unchallenged dictator as a head of state always ends well. I can't believe I'm reading this right. The single best and most important event to take place in British politics was the empowerment of parliament and the Lords, at the expense of the monarchy.

No offence mate, but I'm actually laughing right now. You'd rather roll the dice with a single person who inherits power, than have democracy (albeit the flawed version we right now have).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(and Wills once he gets the job, I'm sure)

I think you'll find that Wills has a job. He's an RAF Sea King Helicopter pilot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Woosh*

That was the point, flying over your head. The point being that all men should be (or in reality, are) born equal; that someone having the birthright of 'King' or 'Queen' is archaic and belongs in the distant past, nowhere near a modern democratic society.

... whereas (as mentioned above) it would be preferable to have a President? What difference would it make? Would it just be the Pri Minister rettitled, or would we have to elect yet another power hungry Politician to a position above the one that already tries to run the country? Anyway, what exactly is democratic about Western "Democracy"? Being able to vote for whoever it is that decides to put up taxes and intervenes Militarily in places that we have no business in? Like one rather than the other would make the slightest difference. To say nothing of the benefits for tourism and the PR value. I'd say have a modernised Monarchy, without all these medieval trivialities.

I think you'll find that Wills has a job. He's an RAF Sea King Helicopter pilot.

I mean the job of King, possibly bypassing Charles, who means well, but he's getting on a bit now isn't he.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because having an unchallenged dictator

The Queen isn't a dictator. Only a politician can be one of those. She has no political powers at her disposal to dictate to us with.

No offence mate, but I'm actually laughing right now. You'd rather roll the dice with a single person who inherits power, than have democracy (albeit the flawed version we right now have).

You are still in the minority pal. Most Britons WANT our constituional monatrchy and don't want a republic.

Come back when you speak for the British people. We don't want a republic.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye, because having an unchallenged dictator as a head of state always ends well. I can't believe I'm reading this right. The single best and most important event to take place in British politics was the empowerment of parliament and the Lords, at the expense of the monarchy.

No offence mate, but I'm actually laughing right now. You'd rather roll the dice with a single person who inherits power, than have democracy (albeit the flawed version we right now have).

The single best and most important event to take place in British politics was to give "elected" politicians completely unchallengeable powers? Surely you don't really believe that either the Lords or the Opposition have the slightest effect on what the party in power does, do you? Does the record of past Governments and Pri Ministers, going back as far as memory can recall, give you any confidence at all that "Democracy" is working properly? It really doesn't to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Henry VIII did abide by modern Western standards - those of the 16th Century in which he lived.

The era in which Henry VIII lived was a very different one to the 21st Century. Stop acting as though he was wrong to not abide by today's standards. He lived in the 16th Century when monarchs the world over married for political reasons or to give themselves a male heir. Stop trying to impose 21st Century standards onto someone who lived in the 16th Century.

For the record, there are no 'today's standards'. There are specific Western standards which are not even applied by a majority of the World, but no sweeping standards of 'today'.

You do realise that by applying the same logic you have just now provided, we can adjudge the horrendous acts of many of the people of the lesser cultures, such as Arabic and Indian, to be perfectly alright, for they are living in a different 'era' to us in the West. Just pointing this out.

Of course people of the past should be judged by today's Western standards. Someone such as Henry who is guilty of the most horrible, or rather, infamous, crimes in our history should not be held any less accountable due to the era in which they lived. Would you try to claim the same thing regarding a Roman soldier who pillages villages, raping women and children because it's the norm for them? Or Vikings who did the same? Or the English right of prema nocta? Or William Wallace's raping and pillaging spree? Or Genghis Kahn for his brutality? Oh how noble Henry and the rest of those examples were!

This employed logic becomes even more ludicrous when we consider that Henry had access to a Bible, and even wrote his own version! How can he not be held accountable when he had the New Testament as a morality guide?

Your reasoning finds its roots in nothing more than misplaced, blind admiration for British history. Which, when we get down to it, is a horrible history to have that, bar some of the technical achievements, no human being should admire.

Edited by ExpandMyMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The single best and most important event to take place in British politics was to give "elected" politicians completely unchallengeable powers? Surely you don't really believe that either the Lords or the Opposition have the slightest effect on what the party in power does, do you? Does the record of past Governments and Pri Ministers, going back as far as memory can recall, give you any confidence at all that "Democracy" is working properly? It really doesn't to me.

Just because the system is in the state it is in right now, doesn't mean that we haven't benefited immensely as a society because of those acts. The rise of the working class and empowerment of the people meant that we used to have politicians who were scared to antagonise the voters. Without the socialism these politics brought we would still have Victorian level poverty. It is only with the rise of the 'dumb' population, so blinded to the world outside their own little circles, that we have had politicians able to get away with murder. Only since the rise in mass apathy has this been allowed to happen.

The fact is that we wouldn't have the society we have right now if it were not for the evolution of our politics. We would still be living in a largely feudal society.

Edited by ExpandMyMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.