Monday, July 22, 2013

It's a Boy!



Congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of their son! The little guy-- 8 pounds 6 ounces-- is third in line for the throne.

They haven't named him yet, but "Michael" has a nice ring.

And congratulations to all of our friends in England and the Commonwealth. This is a special baby born in a great nation with a venerable monarchy that dates back over a thousand years. He's a blessing, like every baby, and should be welcomed with joy. 

22 comments:

  1. Cheers, Mike!
    I am kind of hoping for Richard :P

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't think this monarchy goes back a thousand years. England got a new royal family back in the teens, didn't they?

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
  3. This Monarchy? THE Monarchy, Joey. That would be like saying the United States' republic is reborn with every president. So on the 4th of July your nation was 7 years old. Or perhaps only as old as the ruling elite? The Bushes or Kennedys for example. The families and houses change. There has even been a period of republic (a disaster) and reformation - but the monarchy remains.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's awfully funny to see Egnor celebrating the birth of a baby that will live its life on the public dole.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I celebrate the birth of all babies.

      And I have respect for the British monarchy. It has been a remarkably successful system of government. It's imperfect, and I'm a passionate defender of American democracy, but Britain has a remarkably successful and enlightened system of government, from which the world has benefited enormously.

      Republics can be good things. But they can be very bad things, and can give rise to horrors. Kerensky and Weimar come to mind. And the Brits tried a Republic (as Crus notes) with disastrous results.

      Delete
    2. By your definition of 'dole' so do the military and police forces. I am a career welfare bum by your standard. Interesting! What are folks who work on grants and tenure then?

      Delete
    3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJuly 23, 2013 at 4:55 PM

      Nobody: "It's awfully funny to see Egnor celebrating the birth of a baby that will live its life on the public dole."

      Did I miss something? Did the Obamas have a baby?

      Delete
    4. By your definition of 'dole' so do the military and police forces.

      Do you work for a living? Then you're not on the dole.

      Delete
    5. but Britain has a remarkably successful and enlightened system of government, from which the world has benefited enormously.

      That would work just as well without a parasitical family living on government benefits through an accident of birth.

      Delete
    6. @Anon:

      The Brits tried a republic in 1649. Didn't work so well.

      What they've got now has been highly successful. If it ain't broke...

      Delete
    7. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJuly 23, 2013 at 5:34 PM

      Apparently, your opinion has had little impact on national policy. Wonder why, you being who you are and all...

      Delete
    8. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJuly 23, 2013 at 5:40 PM

      Besides, I suspect that birth was no accident.

      Just sayin'.

      Delete
    9. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJuly 23, 2013 at 5:42 PM

      Prolly just a national case of "bitter clingers". :-)

      Delete
    10. Michael,

      You keep on proving how completely ignorant you are about history.

      The judgement on Cromwell's Protectorate was written by the victors, the royalists, after the restoration of Charles II. The protectorate failed because there was no constitutional mechanism for preserving it after the death of Oliver Cromwell, and it was betrayed by Presbyterians.

      The Glorious Revolution of 1688 did more to liberate England than anything else, largely removing the power of kings.

      The American colonies were largely lost due to bad decisions by parliament, not George III.

      The Weimar Republic could have survived were it not for the Great Depression.

      Kerensky's provisional government wasn't a republic, it was just a continuation of the previous Russian government, attempting to continue its aims in continuing the war. It might have survived were it not for the treachery of German Christians in facilitating the transit of Lenin and other revolutionaries from Switzerland to Saint Petersburg.

      Delete
    11. anon,
      "Do you work for a living? Then you're not on the dole."
      Yes, and so do the Crown Princes of Britain. Ever seen action in the sandbox, pal? No? Didn't think so. You go out and risk your backside on repeated tours of duty and see if that's what you'd call work.
      Have have actually met both the Princes. Where? Some place you'd never dream of going.

      Delete
    12. @bach:

      The British monarchy has proven to be a good thing for England, all told. It's imperfect, and many in the royal family are very imperfect, but it works.

      I'm a paleoconservative. Don't mess with success.

      Delete
    13. Michael,

      You continue to prove you're clueless. The British monarchy is a constitutional one. The British monarch is head of state, without any powers. The British monarch has been losing power for centuries, ever since James II.

      Charles I was a tyrant. He's the reason why it's the 'British Army', not the 'Royal British Army' (unlike the Royal Navy or the Royal Airforce). It's under the control of parliament from the beginning.

      James II attempted to exert absolute rule, and as a result William of Orange (grandson of Charles I) was invited to invade England by the English nobility and become monarch.

      There are no absolute monarchs anymore, except perhaps for the Pope.

      Delete
    14. Bach,

      Who are you arguing with? Yourself? Nobody mentioned George III or James II. The Monarchy still stands. You think the Monarch holds no power? Good for you. Go back to sleep.
      All of us in the forces know better (including the Army(s)). All of us who have taken citizenship oaths know better. All the police. All the parliamentarians. All of us who HONOUR those oaths know better. Know who signed your constitution? What a governor general is?
      Perhaps you're in denial about all that, too.
      Clueless? You're the one living in a daydream.

      Delete
    15. Crusader Rex,

      The British monarchy holds no power. Egnor is the one claiming that it has produced more good than bad. It's impossible to do either when it's powerless. You were the one to mention the English republic. The British monarchy has progressively improved since it began to lose its power in 1688.

      Our governor-general is appointed by the elected prime minister, not the unelected queen.

      Delete
    16. Yes, and so do the Crown Princes of Britain.

      An entirely voluntary action on their part. Their enormous family stipend is not at all dependent upon their enlistment in service. In fact, some members of the royal family have declined service. And yet they were still given piles of public money.

      Did the government pay you before you enlisted? No? That makes you different than the royal family. They are welfare recipients.

      Delete
    17. The Brits tried a republic in 1649. Didn't work so well.

      It worked out just fine. Perhaps you should read some actual history for a change.

      Delete
    18. Bach,
      Argument by assertion means nothing to me or, I suspect, to any of the readers on this blog. You failed to address the issue of the oaths, the constitutional powers, or even the ROLE of the GG.
      You omit a lot, and I think we all (who know better) know why. But I will spell it out for those that do not understand the undertones of your comments: You WANT the Royal house to be powerless, and so ignore these extremely fundamental powers and influences on our Commonwealth. By doing so, you effectively plug your ears and hum away the world.
      I did indeed mention the republic. It was a disaster and resulted in horrendous loss of life and invasion.
      What, pray tell, did did the Glorious protectorate do in Ireland for example?
      Further, who mentioned George III or the American revolution? Who exactly were you countering with those points? Yourself? An invisible gorilla, perhaps?

      Anon,
      Voluntary but expected, especially during a period of war. In fact ALL military service is voluntary these days, so I find your argument facile. Voluntary service increases the value of that service - it does not diminish it. Or, like so many of your fellow travellers, are you suggesting that the people who serve are 'getting what they asked for'?
      Anyone who will sign a declaration of hostilities should understand what it means to be involved in them. Community Organizer doesn't quite cut it in the same way as active duty in a war zone, does it? Both the Crown Princes have served. If the world continues on it's current course I would suspect this little bloke will too. He may well end up serving along side our own children.

      Delete