Discussion:
Prince Harry's children?
(too old to reply)
kim
2007-08-22 21:32:03 UTC
Permalink
Since we've already had a very long discussion on what Prince Harry's
possible future bride should or should not be called, how about we now begin
naming his children?

(kim)
Mary Fisher Is Never Wrong
2007-08-22 21:37:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by kim
Since we've already had a very long discussion on what Prince Harry's
possible future bride should or should not be called, how about we
now begin naming his children?
(kim)
'Schwamm' - seems approriate (German for 'sponge')

"Happy birthday little Schwamm, you're on the civil list...."
Mary Fisher Is Never Wrong
2007-08-22 21:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mary Fisher Is Never Wrong
Post by kim
Since we've already had a very long discussion on what Prince Harry's
possible future bride should or should not be called, how about we
now begin naming his children?
(kim)
'Schwamm' - seems approriate (German for 'sponge')
"Happy birthday little Schwamm, you're on the civil list...."
Members only
2007-08-22 21:48:34 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 23, 7:37 am, "Mary Fisher Is Never Wrong"
Post by Mary Fisher Is Never Wrong
Post by kim
Since we've already had a very long discussion on what Prince Harry's
possible future bride should or should not be called, how about we
now begin naming his children?
(kim)
'Schwamm' - seems approriate (German for 'sponge')
"Happy birthday little Schwamm, you're on the civil list...."
Yes the RF's time is up, actually it was a long time ago. They serve
no purpose at all, the resentment in the country is palabable.
Mary Fisher Is Never Wrong
2007-08-22 22:13:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Members only
On Aug 23, 7:37 am, "Mary Fisher Is Never Wrong"
Post by Mary Fisher Is Never Wrong
Post by kim
Since we've already had a very long discussion on what Prince
Harry's possible future bride should or should not be called, how
about we now begin naming his children?
(kim)
'Schwamm' - seems approriate (German for 'sponge')
"Happy birthday little Schwamm, you're on the civil list...."
Yes the RF's time is up, actually it was a long time ago. They serve
no purpose at all, the resentment in the country is palabable.
There was a TV programme earlier this evening, in which former conservative
MP, Anne Widdicombe, confronted 'benefit scroungers'

One of her interviewees was 'Britain's laziest man - a singularly jolly
individual with two wives and 18 lids, who nets £38,000 a year for doing
nothing more than impregnating his wimmin on a bi-annual basis.

Ms Widdicombe (whom, actually, I rather like) huffed and puffed about the
shocking benefit system that allows this idle lothario to breed at public
expense - but I couldn't help thinking of HRH Andrew, Prince Of Snot, who
routinely spends £15,000 - £20,000 of taxpayer's money by using RAF
helicopters to convey his idle royal arse up to Scotland for a round of
golf.

*they* (the RF) are spongers extranordinaire! - unrivaled master's of
sucking the taxpayer dryer than a Saudi sandpit..

why isn't Ms Widdicombe featuring them in her quest to expose waste and
feckless behaviour?, I wonder.......
t***@comcast.net
2007-08-22 23:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Members only
Yes the RF's time is up, actually it was a long time ago. They serve
no purpose at all, the resentment in the country is palabable.
The Royal Family serve one *very* useful purpose...

They make it impossible for any mere politician to hold the top spot
in the country;
and that in and of itself makes them worth more than twice their
annual upkeep.
Members only
2007-08-23 05:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@comcast.net
Post by Members only
Yes the RF's time is up, actually it was a long time ago. They serve
no purpose at all, the resentment in the country is palabable.
The Royal Family serve one *very* useful purpose...
They make it impossible for any mere politician to hold the top spot
in the country;
and that in and of itself makes them worth more than twice their
annual upkeep.
I would like to agree with you Vermy, however there is no space in
this world for puppets and figureheads. If that is all they are, then
I'd rather vote for an idiot rather than have one imposed upon me.
Louis Epstein
2007-08-23 17:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Members only <***@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
: On Aug 23, 9:48 am, "***@comcast.net"
: <***@comcast.net> wrote:
:> On Aug 22, 4:48 pm, Members only <***@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
:>
:>
:>
:> > Yes the RF's time is up, actually it was a long time ago. They serve
:> > no purpose at all, the resentment in the country is palabable.
:>
:> The Royal Family serve one *very* useful purpose...
:>
:> They make it impossible for any mere politician to hold the top spot
:> in the country;
:> and that in and of itself makes them worth more than twice their
:> annual upkeep.
:
: I would like to agree with you Vermy, however there is no space in
: this world for puppets and figureheads. If that is all they are, then
: I'd rather vote for an idiot rather than have one imposed upon me.

There is TRULY no place in the world for those who refuse
to REVERE Royalty!

It is fundamentally BAD for people to have a voice in the choice
of their Head of State!

Now if only newsgroup-trolls could be shut away in the Tower
of London (with NO Internet access of course).

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Breton
2007-08-23 19:47:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Members only
Yes the RF's time is up, actually it was a long time ago.
One wonders why they are still around, then. Any thoughts?
Post by Members only
They serve
no purpose at all, the resentment in the country is palabable.
"Palabable" is troll speak for "palpable" I assume?

And if the resentment is indeed palpable (in Australia, let's say) why
did the republican referendum fail? (and don't whinge about the wrong
model blah blah.)

Breton
Breton
2007-08-23 19:48:48 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 22, 5:37 pm, "Mary Fisher Is Never Wrong"
Post by Mary Fisher Is Never Wrong
"Happy birthday little Schwamm, you're on the civil list...."
Since the Prince of Wales is not on the Civil List, how can Harry be,
and how could a child of Harry's be?

Breton
Mary Fisher Is Never Wrong
2007-08-24 00:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
On Aug 22, 5:37 pm, "Mary Fisher Is Never Wrong"
Post by Mary Fisher Is Never Wrong
"Happy birthday little Schwamm, you're on the civil list...."
Since the Prince of Wales is not on the Civil List, how can Harry be,
and how could a child of Harry's be?
Breton
OY!! - such pedantry, already!!

Now, look here, we've had this discussion before (quite a few time, IIRC)
and you always display the same tedious attention to technicalities as Rabbi
trying todiscover a way for his axe-murdering brother to escape Hell!

You, me, and most of the civilised world, knows that Charles' income is a
much public cash as the actual 'civil list'! - rent from stolen land, tax
breaks, protection costs (odd, since every Briton loves the RF - according
to you), transport costs, repair and maintenance costs, every kind of cost
(and all of them HUUUUGE!) everything ultimately comes from the public
purse.

Sometimes, that trough is called the 'civil list', sometimes it isn't - but
the cash is *all* sweated from the people of Britain.
Mary Fisher Is Never Wrong
2007-08-22 21:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by kim
Since we've already had a very long discussion on what Prince Harry's
possible future bride should or should not be called, how about we
now begin naming his children?
(kim)
Sorry - I forgot to crosspost this.
Crown-Horned Snorkack
2007-08-23 20:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by kim
Since we've already had a very long discussion on what Prince Harry's
possible future bride should or should not be called, how about we now begin
naming his children?
Lord or Lady N. Mountbatten-Windsor. They would not be HRH - children
of princes are styled like younger sons of dukes.
theunscot
2007-08-23 22:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by kim
possible future bride should or should not be called, how about we now begin
naming his children?
Lord or Lady N. Mountbatten-Windsor. They would not be HRH - children
of princes are styled like younger sons of dukes.
That would only be true while Harry is still the grandson of the
reigning monarch. Once Charles takes the throne, Harry will become
'THE Prince Henry', and his children, as grandchildren in the male
line, will be styled HRH Prince/Princess.
Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
2007-08-23 22:35:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by theunscot
Post by kim
had a very long discussion on what Prince Harry's
Post by kim
possible future bride should or should not be called, how about we now begin
naming his children?
Lord or Lady N. Mountbatten-Windsor. They would not be HRH - children
of princes are styled like younger sons of dukes.
That would only be true while Harry is still the grandson of the
reigning monarch. Once Charles takes the throne, Harry will become
'THE Prince Henry', and his children, as grandchildren in the male
line, will be styled HRH Prince/Princess.
The situation is unclear however if the succession passes for any reason
from Elizabeth to William. Henry would never be the son of a sovereign and
his children never the grandchldren of one. William could raise his brother
and nieces/nephews to the level of same as if Charles had been sovereign -
but this would require a special letter patent.

-- Stephen J Stillwell jr
kim
2007-08-24 01:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell
Post by theunscot
Post by kim
had a very long discussion on what Prince Harry's
Post by kim
possible future bride should or should not be called, how about we now begin
naming his children?
Lord or Lady N. Mountbatten-Windsor. They would not be HRH - children
of princes are styled like younger sons of dukes.
That would only be true while Harry is still the grandson of the
reigning monarch. Once Charles takes the throne, Harry will become
'THE Prince Henry', and his children, as grandchildren in the male
line, will be styled HRH Prince/Princess.
The situation is unclear however if the succession passes for any reason
from Elizabeth to William.
The only reason I can think of would be if Prince Charles was tragically to
die before he could succeed?

(kim)
Graham Truesdale
2007-08-24 22:09:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by theunscot
Post by kim
long discussion on what Prince Harry's
Post by kim
possible future bride should or should not be called, how about we now begin
naming his children?
Lord or Lady N. Mountbatten-Windsor. They would not be HRH - children
of princes are styled like younger sons of dukes.
That would only be true while Harry is still the grandson of the
reigning monarch. Once Charles takes the throne, Harry will become
'THE Prince Henry', and his children, as grandchildren in the male
line, will be styled HRH Prince/Princess.
The situation is unclear however if the succession passes for any reason from
Elizabeth to William. Henry would never be the son of a sovereign and his children
never the grandchldren of one. William could raise his brother and nieces/nephews
to the level of same as if Charles had been sovereign - but this would require a
special letter patent.
See the case of George II's son Frederick Prince of Wales, who died before
his father, so that the crown passed from GII to his grandson GIII. Thus
Frederick's younger sons the Dukes of York, Cumberland and Gloucester
were never the sons of a sovereign, and Gloucester's children never the
grandchildren of one. The Gloucesters were not definitively raised to HRH
till one of them married GIII's daughter.
--
Please do not feed the troll
Gary Holtzman
2007-08-24 00:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by theunscot
Post by kim
had a very long discussion on what Prince Harry's
Post by kim
possible future bride should or should not be called, how about we
now begin naming his children?
Lord or Lady N. Mountbatten-Windsor. They would not be HRH - children
of princes are styled like younger sons of dukes.
That would only be true while Harry is still the grandson of the
reigning monarch. Once Charles takes the throne, Harry will become
'THE Prince Henry', and his children, as grandchildren in the male
line, will be styled HRH Prince/Princess.
This presumes that the 1917 LP will be followed. The Wessex precedent might
indicate that this usage is archaic.
--
Gary Holtzman

Change "macnospam.com" to "mac.com" to email.

-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
a***@hotmail.com
2007-08-24 02:24:49 UTC
Permalink
Those who kvetch about having a royal family instead of an "elected
idiot" are presumably not citizens of the U.S. at the moment. I assure
you, he was imposed upon us (by the Supreme Court and his brother's
poll watchers) and was not our choice. And he's done more trouble and
run up grater expense than all the British royals since William III
put together. The reason the Brits who hate Charles hate Charles is
because he's too brainy for a British prince; that wasn't supposed to
happen in the current age.

Names: A dynasty on the skids tends to remind people of the Good Old
Days (however nonexistent) by recalling forgotten names from its early
years such as Rudolf (Habsburg), Otto (Habsburg), Alexei (Romanov),
Robert (Capet), Jaime (Borbon), Eitel Friedrich (Hohenzollern), Welf
(Guelph), or of the ancient past of the region under other dynasties,
e.g. Baudouin (Belgium), John and Henry (Luxembourg), Gustavus
Adolphus (Sweden), Haakon, Olav (Norway), Boris, Simeon (Bulgaria),
Michael (Romania), Constantine, Alexander (Greece).

Self-confident dynasties risk new names, e.g. George and Frederick
(when the House of Hanover came to England), James and Charles
(Stuarts in England), Leopold (when the Habsburgs went to Tuscany).

Charles and Anne (and William and Harry) were examples of insecurity
by this rule; Andrew was just the opposite. (Today: the Spanish are
secure, the Dutch are not.)

If Wills feels the monarchy is secure when his kids are born, he will
name them Frederick or Diana. (Or Nigel and Felicity.)

If he feels it is half-and-half, he will go for George or Charles or
Elizabeth or Victoria.

If he feels VERY insecure, he will name them Edward or James or
Alfred ... or Arthur or Cordelia....

Jean Coeur de Lapin
Hovite
2007-08-24 09:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Self-confident dynasties risk new names, e.g. George and Frederick
(when the House of Hanover came to England), James and Charles
(Stuarts in England)
James VI, King of Scots, considered James to be an unlucky name and
called his sons Henry Frederick, Charles, and Robert.

George was not a new name in England. Beside the husband of Queen
Anne, Prince George of Denmark, Anne's sons were called William and
George, and the sons of Edward IV were Edward, Richard, and George.
The Bensham Cunt
2007-08-24 12:24:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hovite
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Self-confident dynasties risk new names, e.g. George and Frederick
(when the House of Hanover came to England), James and Charles
(Stuarts in England)
James VI, King of Scots, considered James to be an unlucky name and
called his sons Henry Frederick, Charles, and Robert.
George was not a new name in England. Beside the husband of Queen
Anne, Prince George of Denmark, Anne's sons were called William and
George, and the sons of Edward IV were Edward, Richard, and George.
Why did he consider James to be unlucky considering there had been six
in a row ?

Yes it is a misconception that the Germans brought the name George to
England during the early 18th century, however it must be said they
did a great deal to revitalise it.

TBC
c***@gmail.com
2007-08-24 15:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bensham Cunt
Post by Hovite
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Self-confident dynasties risk new names, e.g. George and Frederick
(when the House of Hanover came to England), James and Charles
(Stuarts in England)
James VI, King of Scots, considered James to be an unlucky name and
called his sons Henry Frederick, Charles, and Robert.
George was not a new name in England. Beside the husband of Queen
Anne, Prince George of Denmark, Anne's sons were called William and
George, and the sons of Edward IV were Edward, Richard, and George.
Why did he consider James to be unlucky considering there had been six
in a row ?
Yes it is a misconception that the Germans brought the name George to
England during the early 18th century, however it must be said they
did a great deal to revitalise it.
TBC
There had been six in a row but they'd all had turbulent reigns and
only one of them died of natural causes.

James I was assassinated in a monastery in Perth. He tried to elude
his pursuers by fleeing through a sewer but the opposite end of it had
been closed up a few days earlier to prevent tennis balls from the
adjacent court from being caught in it so he was trapped in it. His
son James II was killed in an accidental cannon explosion. His son
James III died under mysterious circumstances at the Battle of
Saucieburn while fighting some rebellious nobles, including his son
and successor. James IV in turn was killed at the disastrous battle of
Flodden Field. His son James V died shortly after the also disastrous
battle of Solway Moss, reputedly having suffered a nervous breakdown
and depressed and unhappy, believing his dynasty would end, as he had
no legitimate son, his wife having given birth to an infant daughter,
Mary, a few days earlier. Mary also had an unfortunate end though she
did maintain the dynasty. Due to the fate of his predescessors James
VI and I may have been leery of his name.
David
2007-08-24 16:15:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bensham Cunt
Post by Hovite
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Self-confident dynasties risk new names, e.g. George and Frederick
(when the House of Hanover came to England), James and Charles
(Stuarts in England)
James VI, King of Scots, considered James to be an unlucky name and
called his sons Henry Frederick, Charles, and Robert.
George was not a new name in England. Beside the husband of Queen
Anne, Prince George of Denmark, Anne's sons were called William and
George, and the sons of Edward IV were Edward, Richard, and George.
Why did he consider James to be unlucky considering there had been six
in a row ?
It helps to look at specific instances of the five Jameses before
James VI:

James I was captured by the English at the age of twelve, was a
prisoner from 1406-1424 -- the first 18 years of his reign -- and was
assassinated 21 February 1437 in a plot by the Earl of Atholl to take
the throne. He was 42.

James II, like his father, came to the throne a minor (aged seven).
After a civil war of three years with the clan of Douglas, he gained
full power in Scotland and was able to indulge in his passion for the
new wonder weapon, cannon. On 3 August, 1460, during a siege of
Roxburgh castle (held by the English), James was standing near a
cannon that happened to be poorly cast or bound. As it was being
fired, it exploded, and James was mortally wounded by one of the
flying pieces. He was only 29.

James III also came to the throne as a minor (aged eight). The great
noble families regained their power. During a war with England in
1482, James was imprisoned by rebellious nobles for several months. A
few years after he regained his freedom, there was another rebellion.
At the Battle of Sauchieburn, on 11 June 1488, James was killed. He
was 36.

James IV had been among the rebels against his father. He succeeded at
the age of fifteen, and in penance for his part in his father's death
wore an iron chain for the rest of his life. In 1513, he invaded
England with a great force. On 9 September they were cut down by the
English at the battle of Flodden, King James with them. The King was
40.

James V succeeded as a minor, at the age of one. From 1525 to 1528 he
was imprisoned by the Earl of Angus, who was the regent at the time.
In 1542 James sent another army to invade England. At the battle of
Solway Moss on 24 November the army was slaughtered. The King fell
ill and died on 14 December. He was 30. He left behind him an infant
daughter, the ill-fated Mary.

James VI was the luckiest of all the Scottish Jameses, but his early
years in Scotland were also fraught with danger. Like his
predecessors, he came to the throne a minor (aged one). Scotland in
his youth was the plaything of civil and religious factions, all of
whom tended to derogate the royal power. In 1582 to 1583 James was
kidnapped and imprisoned for a year by rebels. In 1587 he was forced
to sit by to the judicial murder of his mother by the English. In 1600
there was another plot to kidnap or assassinate James (the details are
dark and were probably never publishable, as reflecting poorly on the
King's impulses and judgment). And, of course, in 1605, James and the
English Parliament narrowly escaped being blown sky-high in the
gunpowder plot. However, he survived and lived to the age of 59 --
older than any of his predecessors.

Now, why would James VI and I have thought the name "James" unlucky?
Who knows!

It should be noted that while James VII & II (a prisoner and an exile
in his youth, and then deposed 1688, during the "Glorious Revolution")
and "James VIII & III" (leader of several failed attempts to regain
the English throne) carried on the reputation of the name for ill-
luck, *not* having the name James didn't save Charles I from a
stunning series of catastrophes that must have amazed the ghosts of
all his forebears, could they, like the Baronets Murgatroyd, step out
of their picture frames to observe them. Indeed, the only two Stuarts
who can be called halfway "lucky" were James I and Charles II, and
they both suffered ill-fortune in their younger days, and could see
the storm-clouds gather over their successors' reigns as they lay
dying.
William Reitwiesner
2007-08-24 20:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bensham Cunt
Post by Hovite
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Self-confident dynasties risk new names, e.g. George and Frederick
(when the House of Hanover came to England), James and Charles
(Stuarts in England)
James VI, King of Scots, considered James to be an unlucky name and
called his sons Henry Frederick, Charles, and Robert.
George was not a new name in England. Beside the husband of Queen
Anne, Prince George of Denmark, Anne's sons were called William and
George, and the sons of Edward IV were Edward, Richard, and George.
Why did he consider James to be unlucky considering there had been six
in a row ?
Really?

So you're saying Mary Queen of Scots didn't exist. News to me.
Francois R. Velde
2007-08-24 14:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hovite
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Self-confident dynasties risk new names, e.g. George and Frederick
(when the House of Hanover came to England), James and Charles
(Stuarts in England)
James VI, King of Scots, considered James to be an unlucky name and
called his sons Henry Frederick, Charles, and Robert.
George was not a new name in England. Beside the husband of Queen
Anne, Prince George of Denmark, Anne's sons were called William and
George, and the sons of Edward IV were Edward, Richard, and George.
It's actually surprising that the patron saint was not more often a
namesake.

Where the heck did Edgar (1667-71, duke of Cambridge) come from?
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
CJ Buyers
2007-08-24 16:34:24 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 24, 3:55 pm, "Francois R. Velde"
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Hovite
Post by a***@hotmail.com
Self-confident dynasties risk new names, e.g. George and Frederick
(when the House of Hanover came to England), James and Charles
(Stuarts in England)
James VI, King of Scots, considered James to be an unlucky name and
called his sons Henry Frederick, Charles, and Robert.
George was not a new name in England. Beside the husband of Queen
Anne, Prince George of Denmark, Anne's sons were called William and
George, and the sons of Edward IV were Edward, Richard, and George.
It's actually surprising that the patron saint was not more often a
namesake.
Where the heck did Edgar (1667-71, duke of Cambridge) come from?
Probably to hark a previous Anglo-Scottish alliance.

Edgar Atheling, son of Edward Atheling, and brother of St Margaret,
who married King Malcolm III Caennmor. Malcolm and Margaret's son,
Edgar, succeeded as King of Scots in 1097.
Graham Truesdale
2007-08-24 22:17:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by CJ Buyers
On Aug 24, 3:55 pm, "Francois R. Velde"
Post by Francois R. Velde
Where the heck did Edgar (1667-71, duke of Cambridge) come from?
Probably to hark a previous Anglo-Scottish alliance.
Edgar Atheling, son of Edward Atheling, and brother of St Margaret,
who married King Malcolm III Caennmor. Malcolm and Margaret's son,
Edgar, succeeded as King of Scots in 1097.
I've read that his grandfather Edward Hyde, Lord Clarendon, was
something of an antiquary.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...