If the Royal baby is a girl, should the name 'Jacinta' be one of its names?!

[Pabmusic]

It's the balance of probabliities. See mine above about the likelihood of Edward, Duke of Kent being sterile.

On the genetic front:

1. Queen Victoria was a carrier for haemophilia. There are two possible explanations for this. One is that she inherited it from a parent. The medical history of her mother was traced back through seventeen generations, with no cases of haemophilia. It was not present in the Hanoverians. Therefore, either it was a genetic mutation (chances of between 1 in 25,000 and 1 in 100,000 per generation), or she inherited it from her father, whoever he was.

2. Porphyria (which we all know George lll suffered from) had been prevalent in the royal family for several generations and stopped abruptly with Victoria. It is a dominant gene, so all who carry it display its symptoms, however mildly - flatulence, colic, itchy skin, constipation, discoloured urine. In other words, Victoria did not inherit it from her supposed father, Edward Duke of Kent, who carried the dominant gene, inherited from his father (George lll), nor did she pass it on to her children.

I have yet to hear any refutation or counter-argument to AN Wilson's fascinating analysis. I daresay it's one of those topics that's just too embarrassing to discuss, and the participants are hardly likely to submit to DNA tests (not quite sure who would have to be tested).

Interesting. Thank you.

[Barbirollians]

It's the balance of probabliities. See mine above about the likelihood of Edward, Duke of Kent being sterile.

On the genetic front:

1. Queen Victoria was a carrier for haemophilia. There are two possible explanations for this. One is that she inherited it from a parent. The medical history of her mother was traced back through seventeen generations, with no cases of haemophilia. It was not present in the Hanoverians. Therefore, either it was a genetic mutation (chances of between 1 in 25,000 and 1 in 100,000 per generation), or she inherited it from her father, whoever he was.

2. Porphyria (which we all know George lll suffered from) had been prevalent in the royal family for several generations and stopped abruptly with Victoria. It is a dominant gene, so all who carry it display its symptoms, however mildly - flatulence, colic, itchy skin, constipation, discoloured urine. In other words, Victoria did not inherit it from her supposed father, Edward Duke of Kent, who carried the dominant gene, inherited from his father (George lll), nor did she pass it on to her children.

I have yet to hear any refutation or counter-argument to AN Wilson's fascinating analysis. I daresay it's one of those topics that's just too embarrassing to discuss, and the participants are hardly likely to submit to DNA tests (not quite sure who would have to be tested).

I thought there was recent evidence that George III's porphyria is under question namely that the treatments for his mental illness were likely to have caused the colouring of his urine and the reported progress of his mental illness was not consistent with porphyria .

[Richard Tarleton]

Even the website of the British monarchy seems to acknowledge that George lll suffered from the "hereditary" condition of porphyria.

The haemophilia argument is perhaps the harder to refute.

The Duke of Wellington, who was no fool in these matters, was convinced Victoria's mother and Conroy were lovers.

[ahinton]

The regrettable but ineluctable truth is that the mother is a commoner, and the way has thus now been opened to a new war of succession at some point in the future, a war for which the wise heads in the Nation should prepare themselves.

Since you have yet to respond to the challenge to your use of the term "commoner", I might ask in the meantime what's wrong, for example, with common chords? Clapham Common? common cause? (although I draw the line at "common sense", for reasons that will of course be clear to the more longstanding members of this forum!)...

[ahinton]

With a contemporary "take" on his great-uncle's name added? Duwayne Eddie?

Or as in Duwayne-abe king one day or doncha?...

Perhaps they'll call him Philip - or name him after a Cambridge college, or something...

[Pabmusic]

It's the balance of probabliities. See mine above about the likelihood of Edward, Duke of Kent being sterile.

On the genetic front:

...2. Porphyria ... is a dominant gene, so all who carry it display its symptoms, however mildly...

This isn't quite true. A dominant gene (brown eyes) requires only one parent to pass it on. A recessive gene (blue eyes) requires both parents to pass it on. If a gene is passed on, it may not be expressed (shows up in the person) - the obvious case is of a female who carries the genes for a long penis (or a short one come to that) and who may then pass them on to children, who might be male of female. According to my (vey brief) scan of the internet, it seems that some forms of porphyria result from inheriting one altered gene from one parent (autosomal dominant), other forms result from inheriting two altered genes, one from each parent (autosomal recessive). So, inheriting any particular gene does not guarantee that the gene is expressed in the next generation.

If the Duke of Kent had the recessive form of porphyria, he might have passed it on, but the gene may not have been expressed in the offspring.

It doesn't scotch the idea, but it should make us a bit cautious.

[Pabmusic]

Or as in Duwayne-abe king one day or doncha?...

Perhaps they'll call him Philip - or name him after a Cambridge college, or something...

Gonville and Caius?

[ahinton]

We seem to have come quite a long way from the "Royal baby" of the thread topic - but why "Royal" baby anyway? Third in line to a "throne" that may no longer exist by the time that the possibilty of accession might otherwise have fallen to him is all very well insofar as it might go but, given that he is but one day old and has accordingly carried out no "royal" duties, isn't the use of the term at best premature and at worst misleading?

[ahinton]

Gonville and Caius?

Well, not Jesus, anyway...

[Gordon]

Surely Kings!

[Flosshilde]

Hmm, 'King Kings' has a certain ring, but I think 'King Caius' would be even better

[Flosshilde]

there now won't be another queen for a very, very long time.

You never know. It's a bit early to tell what his sexuality might be.

[Gordon]

You never know. It's a bit early to tell what his sexuality might be.

Oooh!! Flossy, you are a one!! I assume they've already put him down for Eton and the Guards anyway, just to be sure.

[Flosshilde]

There have already been two Charles, neither of whom was much to write home about.

The first was a good deal better with art & architecture than the PoW (even if he was equally bonkers about the Divine Right) & the second was a good deal more fun (& had even more mistresses). Anyway, isn't Charlie going to call himself George when his time comes (if it ever does)?

[Flosshilde]

Originally Posted by Sydney Grew
a war for which the wise heads in the Nation should prepare themselves.

Who are they, then?