It's a Princess!

I'm delighted with the name because in my family we all have royal names. My mother was Elizabeth...2 of my cousins are called Charlotte , my name is Diana (as some of you already know) and my father and brother were both called Charles as was my grandfather, so as far as I'm concerned Kate and Wills have kept the name in the family....My family :D
 
hollydolly said:
I'm delighted with the name because in my family we all have royal names. My mother was Elizabeth...2 of my cousins are called Charlotte , my name is Diana (as some of you already know) and my father and brother are both called Charles, so as far as I'm concerned Kate and Wills have kept the name in the family.. :D
Click to expand...

So, you've got royal blood, eh? :D
 

I could have royal blood as well with English, Scottish and Irish blood. My Irish ancestors got their name through King Brian Boru. ;) Just discovered some ancestors came from Norfolk. First time I've had an actual location instead of just a country.
 
Ameriscot said:
I could have royal blood as well with English, Scottish and Irish blood. My Irish ancestors got their name through King Brian Boru. ;) Just discovered some ancestors came from Norfolk. First time I've had an actual location instead of just a country.
Click to expand...

I knew King Brian Boru's great grandson...he was given an old fashioned traditional celtic name which is still spoken by most Scots on a daily basis ... Irin burooo :rofl:

Seriously tho' that's great about the Norfolk ancestor find . Have you narrowed it down to a town or village yet?
 
hollydolly said:
I knew King Brian Boru's great grandson...he was given an old fashioned traditional celtic name which is still spoken by most Scots on a daily basis ... Irin burooo :rofl:

Seriously tho' that's great about the Norfolk ancestor find . Have you narrowed it down to a town or village yet?
Click to expand...

Groan! :playful:

They were from Stoke Ferry. Emigrated to Illinois in 1865. Surname Palmer.
 
Ameriscot said:
Which one? Not Castle Milk I hope? ;)
Click to expand...

OMG ...!! That was unexpected but verrrry funny.. :lol1:


I'd rather not say on an open forum exactly where I was born , but yes it's in Scotland..and yes a real castle not a rundown housing scheme in the East end of Glasgow...tsssk...how very dare you ..:D
 
hollydolly said:
OMG ...!! That was unexpected but verrrry funny.. :lol1:


I'd rather not say on an open forum exactly where I was born , but yes it's in Scotland..and yes a real castle not a rundown housing scheme in the East end of Glasgow...tsssk...how very dare you ..:D
Click to expand...

:giggle: Gotcha. My dh lived in Castlemilk for a few years. I've heard tales of growing up there. Hubby says he was born in Lennox Castle. One of the very first NHS babies.
 
I never quite understood the fascination with the British royal family. They're little more than leeches living on the back of the U.K. taxpayer, with no real benefit to the country. It costs the U.K. somewhere north of $100,000,000/year to support the royal family; money that could and should be used elsewhere.
 
DoItMyself said:
I never quite understood the fascination with the British royal family. They're little more than leeches living on the back of the U.K. taxpayer, with no real benefit to the country. It costs the U.K. somewhere north of $100,000,000/year to support the royal family; money that could and should be used elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I think that is a matter for the folks in the UK to decide, not us.
 
"They're little more than leeches living on the back of the U.K. taxpayer, with no real benefit to the country. It costs the U.K. somewhere north of $100,000,000/year to support the royal family; money that could and should be used elsewhere."

Some of them are, but not all. There are an awful lot of minor hangers on .

They are a tremendous asset to the tourist industry, and the Queen and Charles, in particular, contribute more in cash terms than they take out.

The Queen is also an unequalled "elder stateswoman" and has advised every Prime Minister since Churchill. When Cameron met Putin for the first time she was able to tell him, on a personal level, forget the protocol briefings, what he , and his wife, are really like.

She could do the same for the Stalin, Dalai Lama, Obama and Michelle, Mother Teresa, Gandhi and Idi Amin!

Not many you can tap for that sort of knowledge.

However, I can understand your frustration t what seems to us to be the total obsession of your press with our sometimes flawed Royalty.
 
My husband would agree with DIM's statement. He grew up surrounded by anti-monarchy sentiments.

I'm not a royalist as I think in the 21st century the fact that people are royalty by accident of birth is outdated. However, I can see how those who grew up with it would want to hang on to the tradition. I am naturalised British and therefore not by birth so am still entitled to my opinion as I pay taxes here. My husband has never forgiven me for pledging allegiance to the queen and her heirs when I did the citizenship ceremony. I had no choice and if I wanted to be a citizen I had to say it.

I do have a soft spot for William and Kate as I think they are down to earth and genuine people. William and Harry are down to earth because of their mother who wanted them to have as normal a childhood as possible. In the last few years I've come to admire the queen for her dedication to duty. I do not like Charles and will never like Charles. I think once he's king the monarchy will be on shaky ground.
 
DoItMyself said:
I never quite understood the fascination with the British royal family. They're little more than leeches living on the back of the U.K. taxpayer, with no real benefit to the country. It costs the U.K. somewhere north of $100,000,000/year to support the royal family; money that could and should be used elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Why not? We spend $100,000,000 dollars a year on Corporate subsidies.. Money we could well spend elsewhere too.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/townha..._welfare_cost_taxpayer_100_billion_in_fy_2012
 
"William and Harry are down to earth because of their mother who wanted them to have as normal a childhood as possible. In the last few years I've come to admire the queen for her dedication to duty. I do not like Charles and will never like Charles"

That's where we differ, as you know!

The boys are down to earth in spite of their mother, not because of her

I also swore an oath of allegiance to the Queen, back in 1953, but she lost my respect when she refused to go to Ckarles' wedding.

I admire Camilla greatly, and I hope I live long enough to see her as Queen consort, she is all that a royal consort should be, certainly better than Philip has ever been - he is very gaffe prone
 
What has Camilla done to deserve admiration? Even Charles said Diana was a good mother. Why did you have to swear allegiance to the queen? My husband never did.

We do agree that Philip is an idiot and needs his mouth permanently taped shut.
 
I agree that Phillip is a total goof and he must be so bored to be getting his kicks by making stupid remarks and getting away with it. He's basically the Queen's toy boy (official name is consort) and looks like he finds everything so very amusing. My guess is that they snicker and poke fun at everyone, that's why they're always giggling together, him and the Queen. (just an impression - apologies royalists). Camilla seems to be smiling a lot too, happy as a clam to have finally reeled in her man.
 
What do people think of the name? I knew Diana would be in there someplace. I suspected a middle name. I wonder if the queen insisted it be the second middle name. Who knows. I still find all this a little bit interesting.
 
I like the name. Diana was never going to be the first name. The queen probably didn't want it even as a middle name but she does not have last say. It's just a courtesy to ask her approval.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top