Little Louie...love it.

Anglo, it was you who said "No one will ever be able to follow Queen Elizabeth and be as well liked" and those I know suggest Diana was always better liked than anyone else in the royal family, including Elizabeth, and William and Harry seem to be better liked now than the queen too. That's why I commented. I'm happy to say that the opinion is very divided for the reasons I shared, you seem to need to deny that a huge number in the country and as expats strongly dislike them.

On a lighter note. Skippy as in P, B and J!

Speaking of liking or disliking, even though I hesitate to speak up, I must admit to having inner feelings, strong but impossible to explain, against Harry's choice for a bride. Hope everyone doesn't jump all over me.

dandyrandy, I don't really have strong feelings about Meghan Markle, but my hubby refers to her as a B-movie actress and thinks Harry could have done better. They seem happy and I hope they are. At least Harry did not feel he had to marry some stereotype.

I'm with you all about Meghan Markle. I just hope they both truly love one another, and this was not Harry being his mother's son by choosing an inappropriate lover - she had several - just to thumb his nose at the Royal Family. I wish them well, but my fingers are crossed.

I love the new Prince's name (and it's proper pronunciation - Louey!) and am so glad that Charles was honored this time, both in the name and due to Charles deep love for Lord Louis Mountbatten - he always called him "the grandfather I never had". I think Prince Charles loves his sons very much and has been a very good father to them always, but in particular after their mother's tragic death.

She's the one who ought to be concerned about the genes the potential father of her future children may be contributing. Harry is okay but his immediate male ancestors, not so much.

I LOVED that no one guessed Louey!! At least I didn't see that name in the polls. I was disappointed they added Charles. He was heartless to Diana. She was LOVE STRUCK and he used her. She spiraled and is responsible for her choices,but everyone knows the emotional torture she went through. I do wish it were "legal" to jump over Charles straight to William. What is it with the "second" son. First Andrew and now Harry. YIKES they can't seem to find QUALITY wives. I hope love carries them through--but the odds are astronomical.

I'm a bit apprehensive about Meghan because she has already been divorced twice. I don't know how her American ways will fit into the mold. I think Harry really does love her. Meghan appears to be spontaneous and fun loving. She is more adventurous than what we've seen of some of Harry's other girlfriends. Hopefully, they can stay together and still love each other.

I like Louis's name.

Why is Megan not a quality wife? Because she is divorced? Because she's half black? Because she is an actress? Because she's from a middle class background? Why is she inappropriate? I'd be interested in specific reasons and the ones listed above are what I've seen so far.

Adella, where did you hear she has been divorced twice? I thought it was one time.

I don't like the name Louis at all. I like Arthur and Charles though. He and Charlotte could both go by Charlie!

Adella, I thought she had only been married once prior to this....

I think people expect her to be like the 20 year old Diana, young and inexperienced. Megan is 36 so of course she has had a love life.

And I think that's great. It's 2018!

I'm not sure where I saw/heard Meghan had been married twice. I'm not finding it now. I believe that was in some of the earlier reports. Maybe it was wrong.

blfenton, I don't follow the royals enough to know but I like the positivity of your thoughts. Best wishes to the couple.

Well I am English born and raised, and my family and many others Love the Royal Family.

My Father worked at the Foreign Office ( State Department) he met Her Majesty on many occasions. I met her as a small child when she was visiting the Caribbean where my Father stationed.

The idea that no Brits want or like the Royal Family is ludicrous, one only has to see the enormous crowds at Royal Weddings and the flag waving masses outside the hospital.

Just this Brits point of view!

And all the screams from the masses of Long Live the Queen.

I don't think that the concerns some have about Meghan have anything to do with her being divorced (both Charles and Camilla are), her race, or her being American and from a middle-class background. I think much has to do with her being an actress and hoping she's not seeing this as the "best role ever".

I think also that people saw how even Diana - a Spencer and quite accustomed to the aristocracy as she was part of it - struggling with the "rules" one must follow as a member of the Royal Family. We, in the US, may look at all those probably unstated rules and think they are archaic and ridiculous - all those hats and suits and coats and dresses etc - but they are part and parcel of what many - perhaps even most - of the British expect of their Royal Family. They do NOT want them dressing and behaving like the Kardashians!

Kate had a long time waiting for that proposal to learn what was expected and William was very careful to be sure she understood the limitations and requirements, as he did not want a repeat of his mother's problems - he bore the brunt of so many of them. She passed her "tryout" with flying colors and has never put a wrong foot forward.

The British monarchy is a fine balance between being accessible and still having some mystery about it. It must move with the times (Charles and Camilla being previously married and divorced) but be careful not to move too far or too fast. They reign at the public's pleasure and right now, polls show that about 75% of the British support the monarchy and the Queen even more. Even those who identify as "republicans" often only object to their getting allowances and living in their homes for free - really only a small percentage wants the monarchy to be abolished. Alls these statistics are easily available with a Google search - don't take my word for it!

Just learning how to curtsy properly (Meghan has not yet mastered this!) is not easy for an American - most have never curtsied in their lives (we had to at my childhood piano recitals but then I'm 74!). Then one must learn to whom one curtsies, and when (must curtsy to Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie when Harry is not present, but not when he is). Would that there was a teleprompter for such! Whenever I see pictures of Meghan and Harry, she appears to be clinging to him for dear life. I would have thought an actress could at least PRETEND to have more confidence than that, so that is troubling.

Meghan is accustomed to being outspoken on various issues and she cannot be as a member of the British Royal Family. They avoid anything that even remotely smacks of politics and get in big trouble if they cross that line. I would find that hard to learn as I'm outspoken, too.

And then there are all those incredibly pedestrian and boring "royal duties" that one must do to earn ones allowance. And yes, they ARE kept track off in the press - the Princess Royal (Anne) is the winner in that dept - she is a very hard-working royal. Smiling and shaking hands and acting interested while unveiling a plaque for the opening of a wing in a community center in some remote place, could get old pretty quickly. Will she be able to do this? It's not just choosing "edgy/controversial" things to give ones patronage - it's the mundane that the British public expect, too.

The younger royals, with the exception of Edward and Sophie, don't have a great track record with their duties (putting them in with the grandchildren as they are much younger than Edward's older siblings). With the Queen cutting back due to age, and the Duke retired (again, due to age), more are going to have to fall to them, whether or not they have young children. The Queen made that sacrifice for her country/people and she expects no less from her grandchildren.

Harry has struggled to find his role and his own voice so he's not going to be a strong guide for her. As I said, I wish them well, but I have concerns that I believe are valid ones. I hope I'm wrong - having had a first marriage fail and seen the same happen to my DS, I don't wish that on anyone. And for her a 2nd marriage? It would not be good.

Well, she's not the first American actress to marry royalty! Grace Kelly did as well, and as far as I know, did fine.

I think it's nice that she has a different background. It's boring if the artistocracy only marry each other. Kate was more of a commoner but she still came from a wealthy, privileged background.

I wish the best for Harry and Meghan and who knows, they may end up being the ones that do the most good. Diana and Meghan are two different people and maybe Meghan can handle all of the publicity better then Diana.Maybe of Diana would have had the support from Charles she would have been more able to cope. Diana didn't have a very happy marriage because of Charles and Camille. Camille is on her second marriage too or is it more?

I like Meghan a lot. She reminds me of Diana with all her noble causes. Diana raised her boys well. Meghan had ONE brief marriage. So what? Both Charles and Camilla(the horse) are divorced as well as the rest of the Queens kids. It's probably because her mother is black. I think she's very pretty and polished.

I think it’s extremely unkind to refer to Camilla as “the horse”. No one can help the looks they were born with and I’m pretty sure we’re none of us supermodel material.

Good grief, anglo. Your characterizations of people and events are hilarious.

Meghan has been married once, for a scant two years. She has been a serious business woman as well as an actress and never displayed a bad girl image in her personal or professional life, as far as I know.

She comes across as extremely confidant and graceful in her new role. I wouldn't be at all surprised if many of the strict royal behaviors fall to the wayside, at least behind closed doors. All the curtsying, bobbing and weaving seems so silly today.

My concern is that Harry, something of a wild child, isn't really ready to settle down. I expect that she will have her hands full.....he has never struck me as being particularly bright but I think that he can shine with a partner like Meghan.

I love the name, Louis. :)

The horse comment is what Diana called her and I agree. She broke up their marriage.

The horse comment is nasty, and uncalled for even from Diana. I think the name Louis, which I never cared for, will grow on me as I get to know that cutie.

I know this isn't a popular opinion, but I was happy for Charles and Camilla when they finally married. She was his true love, yet he was duty bound by antiquated standards of behavior to marry a woman he didn't love in order to produce heirs to the throne. The marriage made both Charles and Diana miserable.

Life is too short not to find some happiness along the way. I'm glad for both of them that they have been able to openly and legitimately be together in their later years.

I too am glad Charles and Camilla are together since they are true loves. I'm glad Charles married Diana to produce these two wonderful handsome boys who so take after their mom who they loved and still do.

rhino, if you think that Meghan is going to stop the tradition of curtsying, then you're delusional! Only the Queen could possibly do that, and I think it is highly unlikely. It's a sign of respect. We may feel it antiquated but then they don't typically ask for a poll in the US and change the rules of British royalty due to our opinion. And yes, the Queen's grandchildren (and I assume greats when old enough), still curtsy/bow and then kiss her, even behind closed doors.

If you'd like to learn more about the British Royal family, I would suggest reading any of Sally Bedell Smith's biographies - she is a highly respected writer, totally unlike those from the gutter press in the UK who have also written them. Due to personal friendships, she was given access to people and documents never given to others as they respected and trusted her. She has written biographies of Diana, the Queen and Prince Charles. All are excellent. I'm sure your public library has them.

We Americans tend to think we have everything all figured out and have been "evolved" enough to get rid of all these archaic old traditions/manners. Well, even in the White House there are still protocols that must be followed. But we do appear to see ourselves as "missionaries" to the "un-evolved" and think we can teach other, far older countries than our own, a "better, more modern" way to do things. When my daughter spent an Upper Sixth Form year at a girl's English boarding school through the English Speaking Union Secondary School Exchange program, we visited her there and had a meeting with the Head of School. He told us that our daughter was the first student from the US who had not arrived with the notion that she was there to be a missionary and teach them a "better" way to run their secondary schools, i.e. the way we do in the US. Instead, she realized that she was there to learn about theirs by participating in it fully and following it's rules; girls from the UK would do the same when being at a US school. He found her attitude not only correct but quite "refreshing" as clearly the other American girls were a royal pain.

I certainly hope that Harry and Meghan are not marrying with the hope that Meghan will "modernize/reform" the British Royal family. If that is so, the marriage is doomed.

I think the Royal Family are leeches on the British taxpayer. They represent a day-gone-by. I believe the modern world has no place for monarchy. Their customs are archaic and while they may be meaningful to people on that island, they are not universally celebrated. Lots of people are just free of the yoke of colonialism and suffered the brutality of the Butcher's Apron.--Ireland, India, Kenya, Singapore, etc. The Royal Family represents the continued arrogance of an empire gone by.

Well said. And they're hardly meaningful to all in their nation (not all of which is on the one main island, don't forget Northern Ireland),

In a way it's funny, because while the UK remains the one country in Europe where the archaic social class system remains in place and an obstacle to progress in so many ways, the top of the ladder struggles for acceptance. In other counties that are more egalitarian and where the royal families have worked hard to live and act more like common folks, places like the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries, the monarchs remain far more popular than in the UK.

While I was browsing through Hot Topics this morning (which I occasionally do for amusement) I found my favorite Royal Baby story posted by Annie Deighnaugh, thanks Annie, you made my day :)

Two fellows were driving through St. Louis and arguing if it's pronounced Lew-is or Lew-ee...as the argument went on, they finally decided to settle it. They would take the next exit off the highway, stop at the first place they see and ask a local to find out.

So they get off at the next exit, stop at the first place, go up to the counter and ask, "How do you pronounce the name of this place?"

The gal replies slowly, "Bur-ger King!"

Well, we all have opinions. I prefer the jokes! LOL Janie (and Annie)!

Harry and Meghan will be given a title on their wedding day. One of the titles being tossed around is the Duke and Duchess of Connaught. Giving out a title in the sovereign nation of Ireland. That is the height of arrogance. By their logic, perhaps Harry and Meghan can be Duke and Duchess of Ohio.

Annegriet, are you British or from the US or somewhere else? As an American, I would not presume to tell the British people how they should spend their tax dollars, nor do I want them telling me how to spend ours here.

When I Googled "royal family popularity", I found that nearly all are at about the 70% level with two exceptions; Spain (about 56%) and Norway at 93%. So, overall, Britain is right in the ballpark for popularity, and Europe appears to like having their various constitutional/ceremonial monarchies. To each his own!

Anglophilia: I never said British citizens shouldn't spend their taxpayers dollars on the Royal Family. I'm just glad I don't have to pay for them. I don't think anybody is better than anybody else and I would not curtsy or bow to any monarch. I believe in a republic. My last comment relates directly to the concept of peerage. Do you think the Queen should be able to grant a peerage in somebody else's country? Do you believe in colonialism? Just a thought--the British celebrated returning Hong Kong to the Chinese like it was Christmas, New Year's, the Queen's birthday all rolled up into one. The newspapers from China, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong all had headlines with sentiments like this: "Ending 100 Years of Shame."

I do believe that colonialism helped many countries to be ready for independence eventually. They were countries with virtually no infrastructure, made up of a tiny handful of very wealthy people and the rest were living in a poverty unimaginable in today's world. India would not be the country it is today if it had not first been a colony. Singapore would not be the Singapore of today. I think this is recognized by the various former colonies remaining in the British Commonwealth, rather than disavowing all connections to Britain.

It is a subject that is debated constantly today and a case can be made both pro and con. I've read several articles about it (both pro and con!) and I think it helped far more than it hurt. It certainly did more for many of the colonies than our pouring money into many Third World countries and most of it being siphoned off by corrupt government officials and very little actually getting to the people in need. At least in the colonies, infrastructure was built, roads, hospitals, the basics of government, and the basics of democracy. Those seem like very good things.

Since you are not British, Annegriet, you would certainly not be expected to curtsy to anyone...unless you marry into the British Royal family, and then you would be. Of course, no one would make you marry.

The British monarchy is popular with many, many Americans - that's why they loved Downton Abbey, watch royal weddings on TV, can't wait to visit Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle if they visit the UK. We might not want it for ourselves, but we clearly are fascinated by it and all its trappings. And no one does this better than the British. We would not be discussing this on GW if this were not so!!! We would not care a fig about a new baby and his name, nor would we care what Dukedom is given to Meghan and Harry upon their marriage (it has not been announced yet and many think that Connaught is off the table as it is no longer a separate country as it was when last used, and is now a part of Ireland). Just as most were off the mark about the new baby' name, we most likely are about the title they will be given.

The Brits like their Royal Family and appear to feel they get value for the money spent. And in the end, it really is THEIR decision, isn't it?

Annegriet - where did you learn that Connaught was back in play? Just because it's extinct doesn't mean it's in the running for Harry. Connaught and Strathearn (the actual title) won't be resurrected. Everyone acknowledges it's gone forever. I've got the nerve to resurrect it (but I can say that and have no consequences to face) but no one in their right mind does. That includes HM and every minister advising her.

The list of available royal dukedoms is down to less than a handful. Kent and Gloucestershire have plenty of male heirs for several generations going forward, so they'll be unavailable for a long while. At some point Clarence might have to be reconsidered. Maybe Windsor can be wiped of its tarnish one day as well. The one that's interesting for me is York, because I can see Andrew insisting there be a special remainder attached to his title (although if his mother is going to do this time is running out) allowing a one-time conveyance to Beatrice. A special remainder was granted to Louis Mountbatten's title not too long ago, so it's not unheard of.

Since I'm in the mood to yap, I'll also admit that the proper successor to the Duke of Edinburgh title, imho, is Princess Anne. I know it's meant for Edward eventually, but Anne has absolutely earned it. Not how it works, unfortunately. I think she'd make a fine Queen, too.

As mush as it makes me wince to think about it, I think it's gonna be Sussex for Harry. What else is there?

Anglo--saying that colonialism helped countries get ready for independence is like saying slavery in the US helped Blacks become fully developed people or better workers. It is also like saying Native Americans were savages and that having their language and religious beliefs beaten out of them in the Indian boarding schools helped them become better Americans.

Again--I don't care how the Brits spend their money. I believe in a Republic.

I think there is a lot of about colonialism you are forgetting due to Downton Abbey nostalgia.

1. The Boer Concentration Camps

2. The Amritsar Massacre

3. The million plus Indians killed in sectarian violence when the British partitioned India

1. 4. The Mau Mau Uprising--thousands of Kenyans raped, tortured, and mistreated by British colonial forces

1. 5. That 12-29 million Indians died of starvation under British rule

6. That the Irish Potato Famine was genocide perpetuated by the British. There was plenty of food in Ireland--all exported to England.

7. The Bengali Famine--the British did just what they did to the Irish--diverted food from starving people. Winston Churchill said, " I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits."

8. Caning in Singapore--that lovely practice was introduced by the British not the Chinese

The Royal Family is simply great and sparkly way to divert from an inconvenient truth.

Could be a lot worse than Sussex. Doesn't make me wince as I quite like Sussex Spaniels and that's what I think of when I hear the word (and also the county).

The birth certificates have been signed. Something that always confuses me is why Kate is designated as 'Princess of the United Kingdom' when that isn't her title. Here is a LINK to Daily Mail which shows the birth certificates of the three children.

"Princess of the United Kingdom" is her occupation - not her title. :)

I understand that she fills that role. I keep reading that she isn't a princess.

She IS a princess, just not Princess Katherine - she would have to be born that way. She is officially Princess William of Wales. Think "Princess Michael of Kent" who used to give out the trophy at Wimbeldon - her husband is Prince Michael of Kent. Yes, it's all very confusing. Like the rules of cricket, I think one really must be born a Brit to fully understand it all.

Maybe I’m totally off base here, but I can’t see Meghan and Harry having a lasting, loving marriage. I don’t know why - just a gut feeling, I guess.

littlebug - I'm glad someone else feels the same as I do (listed above), as there's something I sense in Meghan that others are not seeing. I'm already feeling sorry for Harry as a different type of wife would seem to mean more happiness for him.

I think she'll be bored soon with all of the charities, meeting people and being on proper/best behaviour. No more going out for drinks with the girls, etc.

I find it hilarious that people think Meghan is somehow using Harry and has something to gain by marrying him. Even if it's true it misses the point entirely. Harry and The Firm will benefit enormously from Meghan's biracial heritage in an increasingly multiracial Britain. Have you ever seen Harry on one of his royal tours? If not, I suggest you do so. His sense of duty to the monarchy trumps just about everything else, including love, although they do seem very much in love.

Her being bi-racial is a non-event in the UK. It may become more so if their progeny end up being far darker than Meghan, something that can happen. But in the UK, race is just not the issues it can still be in the US.

Harry is a VERY wealthy young man, worth between 25 and 40 million pounds! Diana got 17.5 million pounds in her divorce. Sarah Ferguson, like Diana, lost the HRH part of her title, but is still a Duchess - so would Meghan be if she and Harry divorced.

This is a no-lose situation for Meghan; Harry could lose a LOT of money if it doesn't work out. I have no idea if Meghan is "using" Harry or if he is using her. They probably don't either, as they are in the throes of love/hormones singing to each other. But if the marriage ends, it will be Meghan who is the winner for certain.