JCC ROYAL BABY: Today Parliament discusses changing succession laws

The Australian one has British teeth.

I'm sure the baby will be raised in such a non royal way that people all over the Kingdom will have grandpa yell at them all through dinner about how they are heading off some cliff. Like my dinner tonight...

He's taken too many blows to the head playing hockey.

His teeth have fared remarkably well considering...

Probably wearing a full face Itech. What a wuss.

That doesn't help the handicapped image.

Well, Harry is officially the useless bother now

If it's a boy, they had better name it Arthur.

who carreessssssssss

Cut This Monster Out Of Me (NSFW Language)

Dave beat you to it.

I am predicting that if its a girl, it'll be named Diana.

What? No, they're straight. The grin is probably due to a combination of MDMA and alcohol, making the face an Australian aged between 16 and 24.

Oh, dear. I asked him a similar question in our PEOPLE interview just now. He went ballistic.

So that makes wocky's interview, what, 5 years in the making?

Because they are very nice young girls. They are responsible and well-behaved. The few reports of their private behavior that have ever made it to public attention (eg Sasha's reaction to the younger Hiltons) are both charming and commendable. Could we say the same of many children? Probably, yes. It is something of happenstance that these are in the public eye. But no one has ever argued that they ought to be valued independent of all this. If they spent their time abusing their father's power to get drunk abroad (to pick a random example), I would not be so laudatory. Yet, that is specifically the nature of the argument about royalty. That people should be honored because they are "royal" independent of anything else. That is an outrageous philosophy, and people should feel ashamed for ever propagating it.

NYCityGurl: That is ridiculous. You and some other individuals might personally find the individuals fascinating. But the whole concept of royalty is built quite explicitly on a idea that ties a specific family to the broader national identity in absurd fashion. There is a huge and unrelenting public relations campaign dedicated to precisely this element, and there has been for centuries. Just because you don't buy into it personally doesn't mean it isn't there.

"PEOPLE Interview" is what Wocky and I call our 24/7 love-fest.

I, on the other hand, hate the institution of royalty, feel a sort of pity for the Honey Boo-Boo clan, and I don't care about Sasha and Malia. I AM NON-HYPOCRITICAL IN THIS INSTANCE.

No, I certainly wouldn't know of their existence otherwise. I also wouldn't know of Sandra Fluke if Rush Limbaugh hadn't decided to spend several hours attributing wild sex acts to her. But I guess I don't see your point. How someone comes to public or personal attention is irrelevant. What matters is the criteria for evaluating once they are known. I am talking about actual elements of their own behavior. The logic of royalty does not make any such allowance, as it is based in an a priori judgment.

hypocreeper?

But you're slightly dishonest though. In that you're jealous you don't have a monarch as your head of state and it chews you up inside.

I like the monarchy. I think it's pretty damn good, as a matter of fact. I have no problem with the idea that some people somewhere call themselves royal and style themselves king, queen, and princes/princesses. Equally, I have no beef with the fact that the people they symbolically reign over seem to enjoy their special, royal family and aren't (currently) taking up pitchforks and running them out of palaces.

However, I'm perfectly content being American and would not trade it for any other culture and nationality in the world.

Except Sri Lankan. Sri Lanka is cool.