to be disappointed that royal baby is a boy

[Madmum24]

I know IABU, baby is healthy etc, but for some reason I really thought it would be a girl.

I don't know what has got into me, I am certainly not a royalist but I have been so interested in the birth.

propertynightmare you can speak for yourself about your opinion on why you are disappointed the baby isn't a girl but not for anyone else and how some posters have reacted, especially since indeed there have been 2 "boys are boring" posts.

Im confused about how learning difficulties come in to this?

I think it should win a prize for the looniest thread ever- but a great shame it had to get unpleasant with it.
There was 50/50 chance and it really doesn't matter.

Don't even ask-thepowerof3- I have no idea either and think it better not to know - they were deleted so not good.

I have a newborn ds so am in the middle of discovering just how perfect baby boys are but I do think choices for boys are a lot narrower than girls.

For example both my children have very classical names that are not particularly trendy at the moment. Think top 50 but not top 10.

But I have met more little boys with Ds's name in the last 8 weeks than I have met girls with dd's name in 3 years. And I have 3 good friends who when I told them Ds's first name-middle name combination said that it was their dad's / brother / what they would have called their dd if she had been a boy exact same combination.

Clothes are another one. Every time we go to a baby group there is another boy dressed pretty much exactly the same as ds. I don't remember that with dd. sometimes there were babies in outfits she owned but very rarely wearing exactly the same. Even at baby ballet where they all wear frilly pink tutus it seems there are 8 different versions of the tutus in 8 different frilly pinks!

So baby boys - definitely not boring - you should see his gorgeous smile. But stuff for baby boys - hmm - maybe a little dull!

Slightly unreasonable - and mean spirited. he won't rule in our life time anyway. We've all lived under the rule of a woman - shouldn't make any difference whether a future monarch is male or female.

Couldn't give a stuff either way tbh and by the time the baby is crowned there will be so little kinging or indeed queening to do that it really really really won't matter.

Oh, it's all so lovely, there's no room for disappointment! So YABU.

Thanks for the explanations, makes a bit more sense now!

Why on earth would you give a fuck about the sex of someone else's baby? Particularly someone you've never met or are likely to? Bizarre...

Being interested in the laws of secession is sad? Well, I suppose it is, really. But some of us find history fascinating.......

The new law still stands. When they made it they knew it was 50/50 whether it was a girl or boy so I don't see the problem.

brokenhearted Many of us will see him rule. To do so we have to outlive William.

Am a female less than 3 years older than him with a history of longeivity in my family I reckon I have a decent chance.

Don't care, but of course I'll be really cross if they don't send him to state school

actually for the rules on primogeniture to have made any difference in succession they would have needed to be in place at Queen Victoria's marriage in about 1840 because her eldest child was a girl Victoria and Edward VII was actually the second born from then it would not have changed a thing as Edward VII eldest child was a boy who died his second child was also a boy who became george V, his eldest child/and son David (Edward VIII) abdicated but never had children anyway George VI only had girls and both Charles and William are first borns anyway

Princess Victoria married a German Prince and her son became the Kaiser in Germany possibly interesting but then would she have been allowed to marry him if she had actually been the heir