Seriously, not Royal Baby thread yet?

From a pop culture perspective, it's a bit ridiculous, but from an historical perspective it's a least interesting and a somewhat significant historical moment.

Calling him the "future king" is certainly accurate, but unlikely to be a concern for a very very long time. His great-grandmother is still chugging along at 87 and he is still behind his father and grandfather!

I just find it historically interesting that Elizabeth is still "in power" and is the same person that was a small girl playing in the royal palace as war raged in Europe and King George VI did his best to rally the nation and the empire against the peril of a true world war (I don't think he had any real political power even back then). What events will the new future king play a part in...

aircooled wrote: From a pop culture perspective, it's a bit ridiculous, but from an historical perspective it's a least interesting and a somewhat significant historical moment. Calling him the "future king" is certainly accurate, but unlikely to be a concern for a very very long time. His great-grandmother is still chugging along at 87 and he is still behind his father and grandfather! I just find it historically interesting that Elizabeth is still "in power" and is the same person that was a small girl playing in the royal palace as war raged in Europe and King George VI did his best to rally the nation and the empire against the peril of a true world war (I don't think he had any real political power even back then). What events will the new future king play a part in...

I agree with this. And for those who don't like the "government sponsored celebrity" thing, first off, it is probably not your government (most of you are Colonists like me) and they pay for themselves through the tourism they generate. A little different from a celebrity anyways, as it is a remnant of history.

aircooled wrote: From a pop culture perspective, it's a bit ridiculous, but from an historical perspective it's a least interesting and a somewhat significant historical moment. Calling him the "future king" is certainly accurate, but unlikely to be a concern for a very very long time. His great-grandmother is still chugging along at 87 and he is still behind his father and grandfather! I just find it historically interesting that Elizabeth is still "in power" and is the same person that was a small girl playing in the royal palace as war raged in Europe and King George VI did his best to rally the nation and the empire against the peril of a true world war (I don't think he had any real political power even back then). What events will the new future king play a part in...

Interesting viewpoint. While the monarchy may not have official power, they can do a great part for morale of the nation. "God save the Queen" and all...

I'm glad he's alive. I also claim the right to mock all this breathless coverage of something that doesn't concern me in the slightest.

First thought was Anti-Christ, but whatever

At least for once we gat some happy news. Lately the news has been the suck to watch.

A baby was born. Did the three wise men visit ?

I didn't vote for him.

ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.

WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?

ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, [angels sing] her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!

DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

ARTHUR: Be quiet!

DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!

ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!

DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!

ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!

DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that, eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn't you?

Old woman!

Man!

Oh, sorry.

Ian F wrote: There's been an amusing meme going around FB that says to the effect, "we fought the revolution so we wouldn't have to care about the royal baby" Personally, I'm indifferent to the Royals as celebrities. I respect the Queen because she takes her duties very seriously and one hopes that sense of responsibility has been passed on. In a way, the Royals provide a certain amount of steadiness and continuity to the British govt, even if only symbolically. Regardless of which party is in charge, there is still the Queen and Brits seem to take comfort in that.

it helps them remember the glory of a time in their past when they had an empire that spanned the globe... England is the Al Bundy* of nations.

*Al Bundy scored 4 touchdowns in one game in high school

As long as people keep tuning in to see what Honey Boo Boo will do next we can't really beat up on the Brits for getting excited over a royal baby.

RIGHT !

Sometimes it's embarrassing to say I'm an American.

Wally wrote: As long as people keep tuning in to see what Honey Boo Boo will do next we can't really beat up on the Brits for getting excited over a royal baby.

How about this? The royal birth was supposedly less expensive than the average American delivery.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/23/the-royal-birth-cost-15000-the-average-american-birth-is-billed-at-30000/

just lambasted by 'breaking news' reports in my email and FB news updates, the little satan apparently has a name but I ain't sayin' to spoil the suspense

hooptie-berkeleying-do

now back to your regular scheduled programming

914Driver wrote: RIGHT ! Sometimes it's embarrassing to say I'm an American.

Wally wrote: As long as people keep tuning in to see what Honey Boo Boo will do next we can't really beat up on the Brits for getting excited over a royal baby.

There is some pretty berkeleyed up E36 M3 on TV in other countries as well, so don't hang you're head in shame too much.

Yeah, full frontal nudity.

In reply to 914Driver:

lol good point.

Mitchell wrote: How about this? The royal birth was supposedly less expensive than the average American delivery. http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/23/the-royal-birth-cost-15000-the-average-american-birth-is-billed-at-30000/

Damn you inefficient costly single payer health systems..oh wait.....

Anyway, back in the US it doesn’t have to cost $30k. Our youngest was born, as planned, at home with a midwife, total cost $2,200 in 2001. After the insurance company cut me a check to reimburses me, they changed their mind and cancelled it costing me a $25 charge from the bank for having a check bounce. Come to think of it they never sent me the $25 they promised to pay for the bounced check, so make that $2,225.

Can we get back to how hot mama's sister is and how dumb Honey Baba is now?

First we beat the "best army in the world". Then they come back and burn our capitol city. They then consider helping the confederacy.
Then we bail them out of two world wars. WTF