Star: Duchess Kate is having a girl & they’ll name her Margaret Elizabeth

star waity

This week’s Star Magazine cover story about Duchess Kate is full of crap. But since we love to gossip about all things Kate and Will, let’s break it down. First, the cover: the palace has not “confirmed” anything about Kate’s pregnancy, so that little gold “Palace Confirms!” stamp is all wrong. Here are some interesting details from the cover story:

*Kate learned during a recent doctor’s visit that she’s expecting a girl. “Kate is ecstatic. She was really hoping baby number two would be a girl, and having it confirmed has given her a real boost!” Kate apparently “teared up and said, ‘I knew it’ when she learned” she was carrying a girl.

*A source says: “George was too young to know exactly what was going on, but he’s learning a new word: sister.” Allegedly, George likes putting his head on his mummy’s tummy and listening. Ha, doubtful.

*A palace source: “Kate loves shopping for girls’ clothes. That baby will be really well dressed! Kate can’t wait to talk clothes and boys with her!”

*Kate sort of thought she was expecting a boy, just because her morning sickness symptoms were so similar to her first pregnancy. But then she literally began to have dreams about having a daughter.

*Harry has been rooting for them to have a girl, because he thinks William wouldn’t know what to do with a daughter.

*William and Kate have decided to call their daughter Margaret, after the Queen’s late sister. “The Queen became quite teary-eyed when Kate and William told her that they want to name their baby after her younger sister. Then Will and Kate told the Queen that they intended to name their daughter Margaret Elizabeth and the Queen was “even more touched.”

*The Middletons have already thrown a baby shower for Kate, complete with pink-iced cupcakes, pink cocktails and a strawberry cake. George was apparently covered in pink icing because SUGAR!!!

*The Queen has already set aside specific jewelry and heirlooms for Will and Kate’s daughter. The Queen is going to gift little Margo with “priceless antique diamond-encrusted bracelets given to the Queen by her grandfather, as well as handmade nightgowns embroidered with more than 500 pearls.” Oh, and the baby will get the Queen Mum’s silver rattle.

[From Star Magazine, print edition]

Star also says that Kate doesn’t want Margo to end up too spoiled or too old-fashioned and stuffy, and that the little girl will be a “21st century royal,” you get the idea. I mean… I’m hoping they have a girl too, but I’ve been getting boy vibes this whole time, so I don’t know what to tell you. But I don’t think they would name their daughter Margaret Elizabeth. They would go for, like, Elizabeth Diana or Victoria Diana Elizabeth, something like that. I’m not trying to be mean, but it’s not like Princess Margaret was this beloved figure in the royal family. Most people thought she was a spoiled brat all of her life.

Us Weekly also had a story about Kate this week, although their sources were less forthcoming. Let’s see… Kate never passes up an opportunity to use the loo. She “loves being surrounded by her girlfriend” too, which is weird because she doesn’t have many girlfriends. Unless you mean the wives and girlfriends of William’s friends? And Kate is figuring out the nursery situation in Anmer Hall – she wants this baby and Prince George to have a communal “playroom” but George won’t have to share his bedroom, obviously.

kate1

wenn21850129

Photos courtesy of WENN and Fame/Flynet.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

123 Responses to “Star: Duchess Kate is having a girl & they’ll name her Margaret Elizabeth”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Luciana says:

    I really hope this story is true. At least, the girl part. I’m looking foward for a princess this time. Margo is a cool nickname. It reminds me of Margot Tenenbaum.

  2. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I hope she has a girl, but I’ll just wait and see.

    • Juliette says:

      I think she’s having a girl. Kate’s carrying this pregnancy differently, and has gained much more weight in her face/neck area than she did with George. The old wives say “Girls Steal Your Beauty.”

      The think the extra weight does not look bad. Its just very noticeable. Its a bit of a surprise to see how small her bump is, and realize that she’s due in April (5 more months!), when she’s so visibly pregnant in her face.

      • Stephanie says:

        I don’t know the old wives tales but watching all my friends get pregnant I think it’s boys that steal beauty. The extra testosterone tends to make bones bulk and weight gather in very unfeminine ways. With girls, they’ve all gained weight in the butt, hips, and boobs.

      • Mary-Alice says:

        No, I have a boy, no one noticed I was pregnant till I was 7 months along. My skin was same, my hair same, and I have good skin and thick hair, no pimples, no spots, gained 10 kg all together in only bump and water. Testosterone worked very well for me. Lol

  3. GiGi says:

    Fun story, but I would be shocked if they named her Margaret!

    • Sumodo1 says:

      Princess Margaret was…an alcoholic.

      • maddelina says:

        And a bitch!

      • Fritanga says:

        Yes. Margaret would be a stretch, as I think that if this kid is indeed female, Elizabeth or Diana would be far more likely as a given name (with Elizabeth being the front runner). He or she would be “the spare” anyway, so the Cambridges would probably feel freer to name the kid what they want and not bow so firmly to tradition. That’s why I think Diana is a real possibility if it’s a girl.

        If it’s a boy I think either Philip or Michael are real possibilities (after great granddad or maternal granddad). Louis is also a good bet, after the royal family’s beloved Louis, Earl of Mountbatten.

    • LadySlippers says:

      Eh, Margaret isn’t so far fetched. Even with all the late Princess Margaret issues — she was beloved by her sister.

      Names, over several generations, do becomes tarred but that doesn’t stop people from re-using them.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think it would be too copycat/copyKate of Margarita Elizabeth Rose Alleyne Armstrong-Jones (Linley’s daughter, HM’s grand niece).

      • wolfpup says:

        Margaret always seemed to like having fun (like the rest of us). But didn’t her real issues come after the Queen told her she could not marry a divorcee?

  4. Jegede says:

    I actually feel for them.

    Cause the bookies were betting huge favourites on George being a girl, and it seems like there would be serious disappointment if its another boy.

    Hope its a healthy wee one either way

    • Juliette says:

      Its funny that nowadays royal boys end up being such disappointments, despite the fact that historically a boy was prayed and wished for as only boys could be the Heir.

      The famous British girls really triumph over their male counterparts. Elizabeth I, Elizabeth II, Victoria, Diana… Even Anne and Zara seem much so much cooler than Andrew and Edward.

      • justme says:

        That’s because what really interests the press about royals today is what they wear. And women’s clothing is far more interesting than men’s!

      • Mixtape says:

        I agree with justme, but think another factor is that, for better or worse, women are more interested in following the royals than men. With “princess culture” having taken over the younger generation, I don’t see this ending anytime soon.

      • LAK says:

        Juliette: going back to 1066 and probably before that, the girls have ALWAYS been more impressive than the boys.

        EG We got Matilda in 1120 because her brother William Adelin , the heir, drowned on a party boat travelling from France. And by party boat, I mean that literally. He was drinking and partying on the boat with all his mates and hangers on when the boat sank. They were too drunk to swim ashore that is if they could swim at all.

      • Cricket says:

        LAK…. thank you so much for you insight. I enjoy reading the comments on the KM, Will and Harry posts just to see what you have posted :)

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Not to mention Eleanor of Acquitaine – duchess in her own right of a huge area of today’s France. A Queen of France who went on the Second Crusade and she divorced her husband because he was more monk than man. Then she snagged a 19-year-old King of England.

        Margrethe I of Denmark is another impressive woman. Daughter of King Valdemar Atterdag, she was married to the King of Norway at 10, educated by a daughter of St. Birgitta of Vadstena (who was VERY influential). She got her infant son elected King of Denmark and herself as regent (he was also King of Norway). When her son died at 17 she adopted her sister’s grand-son Eric of Pomerania and acted as his regent (even after he became an adult). She was the architect of the Kalmar Union that united Denmark, Sweden and Norway and she ruled all 3 kingdoms until her death. She did that at the time when Europe was riven by civil wars and the plague – and she had a mighty opponent of the Hanseatic League. She did this mainly through peaceful means (apart from some deniable piracy). She also won back large amounts of Crown Lands that had been mortgaged under previous kings and she instituted severe laws for rape, the so-called “kvindefred” (woman’s peace).

        We shouldn’t forget Catherine de Medici either though she has a black reputation. Nonetheless she France together for 30 years through religious and civil wars that might very well have torn the kingdom in two.

      • bluhare says:

        You’re going to get LAK swooning talking about Eleanor of Acquitaine, AH!

        I didn’t know what about Margarethe; she was certainly ahead of her time with penalties for rape. Wow.

      • LAK says:

        AH: I love, love Eleanor of Acquitaine. That woman was a boss!!!

        I don’t know much about Danish/Swedish/Norwegian history, so I am off to read about Margarethe 1.

        Catherine had a thankless job and is forever tainted by st Bartholomew’s massacre, but I agree with your assessment of her.

        Christin: thank you. It’s my pleasure. :)

      • wolfpup says:

        The princesses play dress up with us, but what happened to the outstanding garments worn by the likes of King Henry the VIII? If anyone has seen that title on Netflix they will know what I mean (principal actors – Jason ?? and Natalie ??) I wish Will would do some copying. I think that would help his image a great deal – even his scowls might seem in character.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Renaissance fashion for men was quite outrageous! In the 15th century it was very very tight parti-coloured hose, and Tudor fashion was all about wide shoulders, tight stockings on the lower calves and outrageous codpieces. Elizabeth I was said to admire a finely turned leg in a gentleman. ;-)

        Even Regency fashion for men was incredibly, almost skintight knee breeches for formal events – and I mean Skin-Tight and VERY revealing!

  5. the original rachel says:

    “Kate can’t wait to talk clothes and boys with her.” … That quote was taken off a Barbie box.

  6. Abby says:

    I was talking with my MIL about this pregnancy a few months ago and I told her I thought it would be a girl and they’d name her either Margaret Elizabeth or Margaret Diana. Maybe I got it from you fine ladies. We’ll see! I do hope it’s a girl. PRINCESS!

  7. Lahdidahbaby says:

    You can be pretty confident it’s a boy when ultrasound shows it to be, but one shouldn’t presume too much when it appears to be a girl. Could also be a boy with a petite willy. And then look what you’ve done by announcing to the world that it’s a girl. If it turns out to be a boy, then forever he’ll be bullied for his minuscule manhood, his shrunk junk. Just sayin.

    • GiGi says:

      What a strange comment… Amnio shows gender via dna analysis… perhaps you mean ultrasound? And I can’t imagine anyone who would ever think an ultrasound was incorrect in gender predicting because the baby had a small penis (literally… wtf?) and then would go on to tease *a child* about its small genitals?

      • Lahdidahbaby says:

        Ooops, meant ultrasound. But yes, I know of two cases where the ultrasound seemed to show a female and it was a male. But seriously Gigi, calm down, it was just a silly joke.

    • rianic says:

      We call it looking for a turtle or a taco.

      Usually when it appears to be a girl (when it’s really a boy), the umbilical cord is lying over the genitals. You see the three main vessels of the cord, and it’s mistaken as female anatomy.

      When it’s misread as a boy, what’s usually happened is the cord is there in a more face on way, and you see the vessels directly as two larger circles with one smaller.

    • L says:

      I’m thinking she went with the non-invasive blood tests that you can get now starting at 10 weeks. It separates mom’s dna from fetal dna in the bloodstream. You don’t have to wait for the 20 week ultrasound or have a amnio at around 15 weeks and you get information on nearly all the trisomys as well.

      Or they are going to be ‘surprised’- which I doubt.

      • FLORC says:

        I bet they know. Just like they knew about George. William was very passive before George was born about the commonwealth going all boy to rule or girl and boy. Had it not bee a boy or had William not known I doubt it would have been left to chance.

      • Lahdidahbaby says:

        Ahahahahaa, love it! Turtle in a taco! Thx for a good laugh!

    • Bridget says:

      That is such a strange comment.

      Also, they probably just did a blood test and found out the gender that way.

      • Lahdidahbaby says:

        I find all the “strange comment” comments kind of strange and judgy on a gossip site. Maybe you judgmental realists would be more at home on WebMD. ;-)

      • bluhare says:

        LOL, Lahdidah! I just figured they waited to see if the fetus stands up or sits down to pee. :)

  8. Talie says:

    I hope she breaks tradition and goes more modern-ish like Arabella or Cordelia. Snooty name, but cool.

    • Chrissy says:

      Or Charlotte. So pretty…..

      • Kori says:

        Charlotte was actually my guess for a girl when she was carrying George (which had been my guess for a boy). I think William, and maybe Kate, like the more old-fashioned royal names. I think I went with Charlotte Elizabeth Diana (and tossed in Caroline for a fourth–royal but close to Carole as well).

        I do hope she’s having a girl–it would be nice to have one of each. Plus, the last Princess born was Eugenie and that was to a lesser Prince whereas this one would be the daughter/sister of a future King so more along the lines of Margaret or Anne than Beatrice and Eugenie. So it’s time for a new round of princesses. Plus Charles has never hidden the fact he would have liked a daughter so at least he would have a granddaughter to spoil. As a side note, when I visited Clarence House this summer, the tour guide said that George comes over most Sundays when both couples are in London. And there was a lovely photo of Charles holding George the day of the christening–very tender and it was never released to the public. Just a private image but it’s displayed prominently in Clarence House. (No photos allowed)

    • Esmom says:

      Isn’t she restricted to family names?

      • LAK says:

        Talie/Esmom: Arabella and Cordelia are very common names for aristos, particularly Arabella. Every other sloane is called Arabella.

        Arabella can also be found in the royal family tree several times. See:

        1. Arabella Stuart (grand-niece Henry 8 ie grand-daughter of his sister Margaret)

        2. Arabella *Churchill (sister of the 1st Duke of Marlborough, ancestor of recently deceased Duchess of Alba and is her link to the British royals,

        3. Arabella *Churchill was a grand-daughter of Winston. Fun fact: she started Glastonbury festival!!

        * The Spencers are the other branch of the Churchill family. The Chruchhill family name is Spencer-Churchill though Winston preferred to go by the shorter one name rather than the full barrell.

      • LadySlippers says:

        •LAK•

        Isn’t it more correct to say that the Churchills are part of the larger Spencer family? (I know I’m being a bit picky here). Especially since several generations of the Spencer-Churchills used Spencer alone and only tacked on Churchill after 4 or 5 generations.

        And Winston’s father (Lord Randolf Churchill) was the one that used just Churchill — the rest of the family usually went by the double barrel Spencer-Churchill. So Winston, and his brother Jack and all their descendants, were merely following suit.

        Lady Randolf Churchill (née Jennie Jerome) is a fascinating women. I have long maintained that the Spencer women are the most interesting aspect of the Spencer family and she doesn’t disappoint. Even with Winston, I still think Sarah Churchill (née Jennings, the infamous Duchess of Marlborough); Georgiana Cavendish (née Spencer, the infamous Duchess of Devonshire); Lady Randolph Churchill (née Jennie Jerome); Diana, Princess of Wales (née Lady Diana Spencer) are some of histories most fascinating people and all are tied in one way or another to the Spencers.

      • Stephanie says:

        LS there is an episode on Netflix about the Spencer House that Diana’s brother is in charge of. Search by the name of the house (which is completely eluding me at the moment). It doesn’t go into the greatest detail but the brother shares your feelings. The Spencer women are the most interesting aspect of the family.

      • LadySlippers says:

        •Stephanie•

        I wish that sentiment was reflected in his book! He drones on and on about the men and short changes (IMO) the women. Especially tedious is the chapter I’ve renamed ‘Father Boring’ (the chapter’s real name is Father Ignatius). Born the Hon. George Spencer (son of the 2nd Earl, youngest brother to the 3rd and 4th Earls) he converted to Catholicism and changed his name. Father Ignatius was a fairly prominent Catholic of his time, partly due to his aristocratic background. However, he is also mind-numbingly boring.

        Although, I do need to give credit where’s it’s due — Charles doesn’t skimp when it comes to critiquing his family. They are not perfect and he doesn’t hide that which is nice. And he has a nice, readable writing style.

        Oh and the Spencer family home is Althorp. 😊

      • LAK says:

        Ladyslippers: The Spencers are definitely the junior branch of the Churchills. However, it depends on whether you go by weight of title, the rules of primogeniture that allowed the Spencers family to tie to the Churchill family and which branch of the Spencers you are looking at. It all goes back to the Dukes of Marlborough.

        To wit (very long post alert!!!)

        1. 1st Duke of Marlborough was plain Churchill. Ditto all his siblings.

        2. He went on to have 7 children ALL with the surname Churchill.

        3. Parliament agreed to let the title pass to his daughters due to death of his son and heir. As a result, his eldest Daughter, Henrietta Churchill became the 2nd Duke (nee Duchess) of Marlborough.

        4. Unfortunately, though Henrietta had 5 children, they all died without issue so her next oldest Sibling, Anne Churchill, inherited the titles.

        5. In the meantime, Anne Churchill had married one Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland.

        6. Anne Churchill nee Spencer had 5 children. Henrietta outlived the first Of Anne Spencer’s sons who additionally had died without issue. His younger brother, Charles Spencer, inherited both the Earldom of Sunderland AND the Dukedom of Marlborough to be Duke No 3 and Earl no 5.

        7. However, Charles Spencer, Duke No 3 didn’t want to give up his Spencer name, so he double barrelled it with the Churchill name so that every future descendant became Spencer-Churchill. Sidenote – Duke No 4 used Spencer only, but Duke no 5 went back to No 3′s double barrelled Spencer-Churchill and it’s remained double barrelled ever since.

        8. In the meantime, Anne Spencer’s 4th Son, The Hon. John Spencer went into politics, but is only remembered for purchasing Althorp and surrounding estates in Northamptonshire.

        9. The Hon. John Spencer had one child, also called John, and it is *this* child that was created the 1st Earl Spencer. From *this* Spencer do we have the Infamous Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire who was his daughter AND eventually Diana, Princess of Wales.

        10. Going back to the Marlboroughs, all direct line heirs use Spencer-Churchill as their family surname. Winston Churchill is listed as Winston Leonard SPENCER-CHURCHILL on his birth records as are his father, his grandfather and so on and so forth going back to that 5th Duke. Winston’s son and grandchildren are also listed as Spencer-Churchill, but publicly use the shorter Churchill. Further, for his Journalistic career and authorship, Winston signed himself as Winston S. Churchill.

        Only the family can explain why they shortened their name to Churchill for their public life rather than the double barrelled surname they continued to use for their private life, but I guess since Randolph (Winston’s father) was a lowly 3rd son of the 7th Duke, it really doesn’t matter as much.

        The descendants of the direct heir continue to use Spencer-Churchill publicly which can be confusing if you don’t know the connections because to the uninterested eye, the Spencer-Churchills, the Churchills and the Spencers appear to have coincidentally similar surnames as opposed to being different branches of the same family, with the Spencer-Churchills being the top branch.

      • Stephanie says:

        LS are you saying Ignatius (I could have sworn JK Rowling made that name up) is boring or Spencer is boring or both? From that show, Spencer is a dull interview. You can tell he is proud of his family tree and of Althorp but he is so so boring lol.
        Can you list some titles by Charles? Would love to read something of his.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        The first Duke of Marlborough was John Churchill. He actually started his career in Lady Castlemaine’s bed. She was one of Charles II’s mistresses and she bought Churchill a officer’s commission and gave him a pension. He also fathered one of her children but wouldn’t recognize it so Charles II recognized it. He was an outstanding general and this earned him his dukedom as well as Bleinhem Palace, which was built for him by Queen Anne, who was very close friends with his wife Sarah Churchill. She looked very much like Diana by the way.

        Susan Holloway Scott has written some very good historical novels about Sarah Churchill, Barbara Villiers (Lady Castlemaine), Nell Gwynn, Louise de Kerouaille and Katharine Sedley (the mistresses of Charles II and James II, apart from Sarah Churchill).

      • LAK says:

        LS: speaking of the Cavendish family, Georgiana Duchess of Devonshire’s in-laws, Bess of Hardwick AKA Elizabeth Talbot, Countess of Shrewsbury is the most impressive woman in that family. She’s better known, together with her husband George Talbot, for holding Mary, Queen of Scots prisoner for 19yrs. She built Chatsworth and Hardwick Hall which were the showpieces of her life’s ambition.

        She is a thoroughly modern woman who used her 4 marriages and her own intellect to build up the family wealth. she was unusual in the 16th century for being a woman who held a fortune in her own right, built up as a result of hard work as opposed to simply inheriting it either by marriage or being an heiress. Perhaps due to the fact that she was born of a small holdings farmer with very tenous links to minor gentry, she wasn’t snobby about making her fortune as many aristocrats were. She was very hands on with every aspect of her various businesses and where she inherited any wealth, built upon that sum to make more money.

        The interesting about her is that although some of her wealth came via marriages that also improved her status, she wasn’t a social climber in the sense that we understand that concept.

        Each husband seems to have valued her intellect and put her to work after recognising her very good business acumen. She worked hard and made them even wealthier. And when they died, the husbands left her the sole beneficiary of their fortunes rather than the next male relative in their families as should have been the normal practise.

    • bluhare says:

      Hi Talie, Arabella and Cordelia are modern? Are they having a resurgence because I think of Arabellas and Cordelia’s waiting on Queen Victoria. :)

      • taxi says:

        Arabella & Isabella are 2 of the most popular names now – I have a 2 yr old niece named Arabella, there are 2 Arabellas & 2 Isabellas in my granddaughter’s preschool. I know 3 dogs named Bella. (boxer, poodle, mutt)

      • bluhare says:

        I think that’s the difference of geographic location. Not an Arabella or Cordelia to be found here in the NW corner of the US! When I was a kid I wanted to be called Georgeina. :)

      • LAK says:

        Bluhare: I love Georgeina, Georgina and Charlotte. And Eleanor for the obvious reasons.

      • bluhare says:

        LAK, I will be Georgeina Geraldine and you can be Georgeina Eleanor. :)

        Geraldine was my second favorite names. I think I read too many Enid Blyton boarding school books!

    • Stephanie says:

      My youngest niece is Arabella but I hate the name lol. I call her Ara. Her parents keep subtlety hinting they prefer Bella but I’m acting like it’s going over my head.

  9. Ethelreda says:

    This story sounds like BS to me. We don’t really do ‘baby showers’ in the UK, but even so, isn’t it a bit early given that she’s not due for another 4 months? The tabs are obviously going to go with the ‘it’s a girl’ angle as Kate already has a boy and another would be ‘boring’ and not sell as many magazines. Plus, they have a fifty per cent chance of being right, so, why not?

  10. scout says:

    Star mag!! nuff said!

  11. FLORC says:

    Ok Star
    Keep swinging and you’ll hit something eventually.
    I do like the name Margo, but Kate shouldn’t kid herself. This child might be raised as the most spoiled, entitled little royal in some time with William and the Midds being the ones to show them the way.

    • LadySlippers says:

      LOL

      Exactly •Florc•! The Star is almost as good as The Globe for reliability…

      (Except for the dogs feuding. I’ll bet the horses flaunt the fact that they are the ones that are truly loved by all the royals. And the dogs retaliate with the fact that they live in the houses while the stupid ponies live in a barn…the in-fighting in that family sure astonishes 😉)

    • Reece says:

      Might? lol

  12. Marie-France says:

    They should name her Diana 2

  13. Bess says:

    A girl would be nice to balance out the family.

  14. mkyarwood says:

    I hope they dig into the lineage a bit. There are loads of nice girl names. Eleanor, Isabella or Marie come to mind. There’s also Anne and Charlotte… even the ubiquitous Victoria.

  15. LT says:

    I’m pretty sure the Queen has a much bigger hand in baby names than just being notified. Prince Edward got his choices vetoed by the palace, so don’t expect anything too crazy.

    • bluhare says:

      I think you’re right, LT. Probably why George isn’t little Peyton right now. :)

    • Cricket says:

      I’ve wondered about that though.. do you think the Queen would approve of Savannah and Isla? Seems to lower middle class to me.. (in Hyacinth accent of course)

      • FLORC says:

        Hah!
        The Buckets appear so much like the true to life Middletons.

      • bluhare says:

        If I remember correctly, Kate’s favorite name for George was Alexander but it’s now his middle name. As a future king the Queen wants a kingly name. Although I do think Alexander the Great (or Grump) has a ring to it.

      • Kori says:

        I don’t think the Queen has much control over that branch of the family. :) Zara, Mia, Savannah, Isla–all uncommon and/or unroyal names. But the direct heirs, I imagine she steps in. I think she put the kibosh on the name Charles and Diana originally had picked out for William?

      • bluhare says:

        I think you’re right Kori. The Queen cares what a future monarch’s name will be is my guess. Otherwise she probably isn’t that picky.

  16. MinnFinn says:

    The name Margaret, not gonna happen.

    About the NYC trip. I predict Kate will deplane in a new red coat dress and hat. And sometime in NYC Kate will wear a new McQueen coat dress. I recently counted and Kate owns at least 60 coats/coat dresses. Ten of them are McQueen bought after her marriage.

    If she pays retail for McQueen, she easily has £25,000 invested in just those 10 coat dresses. Chew on that.

    • mkyarwood says:

      This might be me, though, if I had that kind of money. I really prefer to wear a ‘uniform’ myself of varying shades and details, but with the same silhouette.

    • LadySlippers says:

      •MinnFinn•

      I could see them using Margaret. I think since they went with George, we’ll see other traditional names being hauled out. Although, I see Mary being used before Margaret as Mary was Lilibet’s Granny and hasn’t been used in awhile… And I can see Albert being trotted out for a boy (George VI’s first name). In general, staid and solid names will be used.

      • LAK says:

        LS: Lilibet is a Mary. Her full names are Elizabeth Alexandra Mary. Margaret’s full name was Margaret Rose.

        If they are sucking up to HM as this article implies (heck it stranger things have happened, even if it’s complete BS!!), then they have options of Rose, Alexandra and Mary.

        Although, since PGtips is already an Alexander, that probably rules it out for a girl child.

    • taxi says:

      She doesn’t pay retail, ever.

    • FLORC says:

      This would be the time and place to start predicting how her attire will mimic Diana’s. If done now it’s more of a solid case she actively tries to dress like Diana. Rather than seeing what Kate worse and finding a somewhat matching outfit that Diana wore.

      For Bonus Points. Find an image of Diana exiting a plane that just landed in the states and we’ll see if Kate follows.

  17. MinnFinn says:

    “Figuring out the nursery situation at Amner Hall” – I have to believe that is already done i.e. part of the renovation.

  18. MinnFinn says:

    Any insight on whether this photo of William discussing Ebola was taken inside the Cambridge KP flat? The room in which he’s sitting is decorated in neutrals so I got to thinking.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2837188/Dukes-plea-illegal-poaching.html

    • LadySlippers says:

      •MinnFinn•

      Good question!

      I was wondering the same thing when Harry was filming his recent two clips. It does kinda look neutral and modern….I’d bet you’re right. It’s either that or Anmer but I’ll wager it’s KP if I was forced to choose.

    • Juliette says:

      Very interesting. I think you are right. The room is sparse and modern. It would fit with their plan to use KP for their “work” and Anmer for the private family life.

    • wolfpup says:

      That window looks like it could be the one that the young royal family was photographed from. I wouldn’t doubt that aforementioned photo was taken in KP, but I would say that it doesn’t look like a very homey place to live. Nice furniture, but so formal…

      • FLORC says:

        It looks like the Hilton in DC.
        Very upscale hotel for that diplomatic crowd.

        And I agree Wolfpup. Nothing about it screams home.
        Still, KP must be split up very well. 1 portion for business and another for family. It certainly is large enough. I’m sure Anmer will be the same.
        Otherwise, what good would that Family kitchen be at KP?
        They have to live in there at some point, right?

    • bluhare says:

      All I can see is how badly that picture needs to be straightened. My fingers are itching and twitching over here!

      • LAK says:

        It’s definitely KP. One of the upper rooms overlooking the private garden. You can tell by the angle of the exposed brickwork through the window.

        Bluhare: Something to make you laugh. The sitter of that Portrait is Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge, Duchess of Teck whose legacy, apart from birthing the future Queen Mary, is the sheer volume and dedication of her charity work.

        However, on the personal side, The Tecks were such spendthrifts and extravagant that they had to run away to Europe for afew years to escape their creditors!!!!

      • Kori says:

        Yes, the Duchess of Teck is a fun royal if you want to read up on some of the ‘oldies but goodies’. She was immensely heavy and was called Fat Mary within the family and even in the press. But the public loved her and she had the public nickname The People’s Princess 100 years before Diana. She was fun and jovial but ran through money like water and after Queen Victoria (her first cousin) bailed her out for the umpteenth time it was politely suggested they decamp for Europe for a bit. This is where Queen Mary developed her love of travel, history and art–they spent a lot of time in Italy and particularly Florence. The Duchess died just a few years after Queen Mary became the Duchess of York and her husband a few years after that so the Teck grandparents were fairly unknown to Edward VIII and his siblings (some of whom weren’t even born while their grandparents were alive). But the fabulous Cambridge emeralds the Queen wears, as well as other familiar pieces, are a legacy of these Great-grandmother.

      • bluhare says:

        I always feel so lacking in the history department when I come over here with you ladies!. So Mary of Teck (QEII’s grandmother) was also a descendent of Victoria? Or did she marry into the family and then gave birth to Mary? I always thought Mary was German and spoke it as a native language.

        I had no idea her mother was called the people’s princess! Thank you Kori. I will go read up a bit now.

      • LAK says:

        Bluhare: ‘Fat Mary’ was a first cousin of Victoria.

        They share a grandfather in George 3 who had 15 children. Amazingly, most survived into adulthood though they died as young adults. All seemed to have difficulty conceiving so very few royal cousins in the grandchild generation as they managed only one kid, if they managed at all.

        In the pecking order of George 3′s kids, Victoria’s father was child no 5 whereas Princess Adelaide’s father was child no 8.

        In essence, the future Queen Mary was Victoria’s grand niece (ie George 5′s second cousin)

        As for language, ‘Fat Mary’ was born in Hanover and spent her early life in Germany. Her family returned to England on Victoria’s ascension.

        Her future husband was German, so it’s no wonder that the future Queen Mary also spoke German.

        Ps: there are far too many Marys in this family!!

      • bluhare says:

        There are definitely too many Marys when one of them has to be called Fat Mary to identify her.

  19. minxx says:

    I can see the kids all grown and having a familiar conversation:
    “And why is the carpet all wet, George?”
    “I don’t know, MARGO”

  20. Marianne says:

    Maybe its just wishful thinking on my part (cause I want there to be a Prince Freddie) but I keep thinking it will be another boy.

  21. Jeanne says:

    I think she’s having a girl. They say girls take the beauty from their mother, and her face has really changed with this pregnancy – her face is a lot wider. I’m willing to put money on it!

  22. Bethany says:

    I just keep thinking how George is going to take a definite back seat to a sister, who will be groomed into a fashion plate like her mother, if Kate has a girl. All we’ll see and hear are the latest clothing purchases for the little one and have her face and fashion plastered over every type of media as is her mother. George will become lost in the frills and lace.

  23. Alexis says:

    Awww. I really like the name, and I hope everything in this story is true.

  24. joe spider says:

    What a load of twaddle.

  25. The Original Mia says:

    Doubt they are having a girl. If they were, Kate wouldn’t be able to control herself. Giving William what he desperately wants? She would be wearing pink and dropping hints like a mad woman. Just as we all suspected with all the blue she was buying that she was having a boy.

  26. LadySlippers says:

    OT: Carryover from the last Kate post.

    We’re you talking about the James Whitaker interview with George Galloway? In it, James talks about class and knowing certain things about royalty that only another royal would understand. Is that it?

    I’m still looking 😊. Let me know if anyone finds that interview.

    • LadySlippers says:

      Oh no!!!!

      Baruch Dayan HaEmet 😢

      She was one hell of a woman!

      • wolfpup says:

        This king and Queen had high principles and great self-awareness. These are the kind of people that I enjoy reading about, because their story is truly inspiring. Here’s one quote from the article, by the King, “I am at the end. It would not have been possible without her”. This marriage was meaningful! (thanks, notasugarhere!)

  27. SoCal says:

    My name starts with a J and it would be cool if they named a girl, Jane, Joan or Juliet. Especially, Juliet because of the William name connection: Prince William/William Shakespeare wrote Romeo & Juliet…you get it lol

    Princess Juliet Diana Caroline Elizabeth

  28. Murphy says:

    This is all BS.

  29. G says:

    Yeah I’m thinking BS just because why wouldn’t DIANA be part of her name?

    • notasugarhere says:

      Because even William knows that saddling a child with his late mother’s name is cruel? Scratch that, this is the cheapskate who thought saddling his wife with a globally-famous symbol of an unhappy marriage was a good idea.

  30. perplexed says:

    I guess she can talk eyeliner with a girl.

  31. LaurieH says:

    Who knows if that’s true, but Margaret Elizabeth is a lovely name. I love classic names. My middle name is Elizabeth… it’s a tradition that has existed in my family for generations: the first born girl’s middle name is always Elizabeth.

  32. wolfie says:

    Indeed: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2863020/Why-Kate-s-copying-Diana-Charles-failed-did-Camilla-Kate-sets-conquer-New-York-secret-weapon.html

    This article compares different royals visits to NYC. The post says that the Queen’s family uses these trips as a fig leaf, to rattle their begging bowls so they can raise funds for their causes, using American goodwill: like Viking raids, the article states. But our politicians are using them as well to bolster their images – it’s all so hypocritical!

    I don’t think that Kate will ever be able to make me cry from tenderness like Diana did. But it will be interesting to see how Americans take to these two. I believe that what bothers me the most about them, is how dishonest their PR team is. Diana requested a visit to the poorest children in NYC, and so Kate’s PR team is sending her there too (hoping some of Diana’s grace will rub off onto Kate?). Are we supposed to meld these two women into one princess? Or believe that she is “just like Diana?”

    I’ve realized that it is not these two people per se, that irritates me. It’s all of the dishonesty. The only remaining tenderness I have towards them, is because Diana would want them to succeed. But everyone has to stop lying! Let them be df if that’s all they are – that would be easier to accept than all the layers of bs.

  33. Caroline says:

    Oh wow. What rubbish and is that meant to be Kate on the front because it does not look like her. Our Queen is also made of sterner stuff than to cry if a baby is named after her. Different aspect, but the only time the Queen has 100% definitely cried in public was when Britannia was de-commissioned.

    George was heavily tipped as the name for the royal baby boy before the name was announced and Alexandra had been heavily tipped for a girl. George was not named for any immediate family member and I would say the same will probably apply for this baby. The name Diana will no doubt tempt William but then what about Carol? They seem to go for very traditional names and to have the baby named both Diana and Carol might not be upmarket enough. In fact I would go so far as to say they will never name a child Carol. I seem to remember reading they did not ask the Queen for approval over the names but I think the Queen saw George before the names were announced so she was probably told then. The Queen asked Sophie and Edward to give Louise “Elizabeth” as one of her names but for the Queen Mother, not for herself. Princess Margaret was going to be called Anne but George V vetoed this name. I don’t know if they do particularly want a girl this time. A boy might be more of a companion for George. I think they will have three children so may want to leave a girl for the third child.

    • LAK says:

      There is lots of evidence that PGtips was named after close and immediate family members.

      1. Both Charles and HM’s father are George namely Charles Philip Arthur George and Albert Frederick Arthur George respectively.

      2. Prince Edward is a Louis namely Edward Antony Richard Louis.

      3. Not forgetting Lord Louis Mountbatten, Charles and Philip’s beloved uncle.

      4. PGtips’s full name is the first name of each of Diana’s siblings’ first born son namely George (son of Sarah) Alexander (son of Jane) Louis (son of Charles)

      • Caroline says:

        Sorry but I do not agree with you at all. If they had named George after close family members where are Michael, Charles, Philip, Harry/Henry, James? Of course, you are going to find some of George’s names if you look hard enough because he was given very classic, traditional names all of which are quite fashionable at the moment.

        Prince Edward was the last person Kate and William would name a son after. Are you not forgetting the furious row in 2001 when his film company stayed on at St Andrew’s to photograph William in his early university days after all the other companies had gone home.

        Regarding Diana’s siblings. George is about a lot more than Diana. Even the most ardent Diana follower would say this was going a bit too far in view of the fact that there are three other grandparents. George, Alexander and Louis as I said earlier are very traditional “in” names at the moment. If Kate and William are so close to Diana’s siblings why were none of them at the christening or named as godparents? As far as I know, Sarah is the only one they are in close touch with although I think they all got the chance to see George. Charles Spencer is not a good example for any great nephew though in view of his children to different women and from the William POV the fact he denied Diana a house on the Althorpe estates. The Middletons are also quite in control and this would not be acceptable.

        As for Lord Mountbatten why call George after him when he died before William was even born and there is no connection? I did think George might have got Philip as one of his names but if you think about it he has another three great grandfathers and maybe Kate was close to her grandfathers. I think they decided it would get too complicated if he was to be named after people – hurt feelings etc – so chose their own names.

        I probably tip James as a second son, not for James Middleton but because it is a classic name. Maybe not though, as the James’s in the royal family do not have a good history.

  34. wolfpup says:

    This couple are not coming to New York City to visit. They are coming for money.

    The American “arm” of the royal foundation was created by *the royals*. Most, if not all of the activities they are engaging in, are being hosted by the British living in America! Of course there are American politicians involved (the Clintons are engaging to run for the White House, and as the Clinton’s are always trying to get their daughter involved in politics, Chelsea will be there, of course). Then, they(?) are throwing Diana’s charities into the mix hoping that Diana’s heartfelt concern for the neediest might make Kate more popular. Money and publicity…this is not about party dresses and costume changes – only so far as they create money and publicity.

    It would have been nice if the young royals had visited and created goodwill before going for American pocketbooks; or if they were to begin, by trying to raise money for American charities, or even for joint charities of both countries.

    It was a very dumb move to tell the American press how to “look smart” (!) for this “important occasion” (even though it’s been denied, it was said to someone – because an *enforced* dress code does exist and everyone now knows about it). It’s unbelievable that they think that we are supposed to dress up for them because they *demand it*. We are supposed to dress up for an ambulance pilot in training, and a former chain store accessories buyer. (Because the Queen of England says so).

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2863744/William-Kate-charge-15-couples-32k-dinner-New-York-Cash-access-questions-Royal-couple-court-super-rich.html

    • Feeshalori says:

      I don’t mind that there’s an existing dress code that’s posted on the British monarchy site where it’s available for general viewers who want to brush up on their sartorial skills for a royal visit. I mind that it was rammed down the press’s throat in the not-so-tactful manner specifically for Will and Kate.