Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Eugenie’s baby (no.3)

153 replies

EmpressSisi · 04/08/2026 18:24

Eugenie gave birth to a daughter on Monday. She was born in Lisbon, Portugal.

The baby’s name has not been revealed yet.

If anyone cares.

Eugenie’s baby (no.3)
OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
FIoorboard · 05/08/2026 12:44

WouldRatherBeOnaBeach · 04/08/2026 23:58

Amelia is a congenital birth defect!

Awful name!

What does that mean!!!!!

deeahgwitch · 05/08/2026 12:47

I don’t like her choices for her boys names.
I didn’t like the names Eugenie or Beatrice either.

IcedPurple · 05/08/2026 12:47

If you want to know why Republicans have failed to advance their cause beyond a small minority, just take a look at some of the replies here.

There are many reasons to criticise the royals and the institution of monarchy. But a photo of a newborn is not one of them.

SleepingStandingUp · 05/08/2026 13:13

FIoorboard · 05/08/2026 12:44

What does that mean!!!!!

literally that "Amelia" is the name of a congenital birth defect!

it's where one limb fails to grow in utero.

and she think it's a horrible name.

MindThePause · 05/08/2026 13:15

Aww the tiny hand clutching a finger..

Love babies.

Mingou · 05/08/2026 13:27

SleepingStandingUp · 05/08/2026 13:13

literally that "Amelia" is the name of a congenital birth defect!

it's where one limb fails to grow in utero.

and she think it's a horrible name.

That comes from a totally different greek root, so it does not mean that in the sense of a name

CurlewKate · 05/08/2026 13:39

IcedPurple · 05/08/2026 12:47

If you want to know why Republicans have failed to advance their cause beyond a small minority, just take a look at some of the replies here.

There are many reasons to criticise the royals and the institution of monarchy. But a photo of a newborn is not one of them.

Surely a discussion of the PR impact of the publication of a picture-however beautiful-is entirely legitimate?

Ukisgaslit · 05/08/2026 13:43

Serenster · 05/08/2026 12:37

Helpfully, there’s an academic deep dive into this very subject that disproves your assertion. It goes through how Queen Victoria’s pregnancy with and subsequent birth of her oldest daughter Vicky was subject to massive press coverage. You can read the abstract at the link below.

That was 186 years ago now, showing just how long royal babies have been big news.

https://academic.oup.com/jvc/article-abstract/27/3/424/6574465?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Not ‘news’ but aggressive PR. I see we agree

Victoria was often deeply unpopular and the wholesome mother image was pushed heavily to counteract that - esp in the early years when her German uncles were mired in scandal . Sound familiar ?

The difference now is they can’t get away with the holier than thou rubbish so they are trying the ‘ we are just like you’ nonsense .
Buying bots , insta reels blah blah .

What did you know and when William and Charles ?
Start with coming clean if you want any chance of convincing anyone under 60 to give you the time of day .

IcedPurple · 05/08/2026 13:44

CurlewKate · 05/08/2026 13:39

Surely a discussion of the PR impact of the publication of a picture-however beautiful-is entirely legitimate?

It's a single picture of a newborn baby.

As others have said, releasing such photos is something royals all over the world have done as long as photography has existed. Entirely unremarkable.

If you consider it 'legitimate' to debate its 'PR impact', knock yourself out.

Mingou · 05/08/2026 13:45

The back of a newborn baby at that. It could be anyone.

Serenster · 05/08/2026 15:19

Not ‘news’ but aggressive PR. I see we agree

No, we don’t. This was newspaper reporting without any involvement by the palace. Did you read the link? It was not PR. The press were speculating about things like the date of the baby’s conception, the need for a regent if Victoria died in childbirth, and there was “relentless press scrutiny” about the shape of her body as the press tried to guess if the newlywed was pregnant. The possibility and then the actuality of the royal baby was a news story of huge public interest. And so it has continued.

You have to wait seven years to get to the purposeful PR deployment of Victoria’s family - and by then she had five children. The Winterhalter painting of Victoria, Albert and their family was the first time an image of any of them was made public.

Eugenie’s baby (no.3)
Serenster · 05/08/2026 15:31

Also, Victoria’s accession to the throne as a young 18 year old woman in 1837 (a young woman completely unknown to the public due to her Mother’s adherence to the “Kensington system” where she was brought up at Kensington palace in near-total seclusion) meant simply the fact that the country had a new young Queen after a series of scandalous royals was the (hugely positive) story in and of itself. She actually didn’t need to do anything except exist! The press were keen to garland her with virtues despite the fact she herself had done absolutely nothing yet.

The Guardian for example wrote on the 24th of June 1847 :
The accession of our young queen is a circumstance full of hope and promise.” They went on to say “It cannot excite surprise, that, though surrounded by her illustrious mother and other friends, her majesty, during the ceremony of her proclamation on Wednesday, at St. James's Palace, should have been affected, even to tears, by a sense of the novelty and responsibility of her situation. Those tears, however - to adopt with a little variation the language of a noble poet with respect to another young and accomplished princess, -
- "were virtue's tears
auspicious to those much-loved isles."
And we add the wish,
"Oh! be each drop in future years
Repaid her by a nation's smiles!"

Ukisgaslit · 05/08/2026 15:35

Serenster · 05/08/2026 15:19

Not ‘news’ but aggressive PR. I see we agree

No, we don’t. This was newspaper reporting without any involvement by the palace. Did you read the link? It was not PR. The press were speculating about things like the date of the baby’s conception, the need for a regent if Victoria died in childbirth, and there was “relentless press scrutiny” about the shape of her body as the press tried to guess if the newlywed was pregnant. The possibility and then the actuality of the royal baby was a news story of huge public interest. And so it has continued.

You have to wait seven years to get to the purposeful PR deployment of Victoria’s family - and by then she had five children. The Winterhalter painting of Victoria, Albert and their family was the first time an image of any of them was made public.

Not to derail but no - that’s just your opinion.

I’d argue it started when Victoria was 20 .
Her marriage was used to try to clean up the increasingly unpopular monarchy .

There was even greater need for PR years later- I’ve no doubt .

But you prove that PR was needed and heavily deployed .
This was the start of the royal ‘charity’ wheeze- though Victoria may well have been expected to actually stump up some cash.
Not a tweet.

Serenster · 05/08/2026 15:43

Tell me then - what were the names of these PR advisers in Victoria’s court? And what was their relationship with the press of the day? How did they communicate with the media? Can you give us some examples/ And if Victoria was so guided by PR, as you allege, why did she withdraw so completely from society after Alberts earth, leading to great personal unpopularity as the “Widow of Windsor”?

Since you state your opinion so confidently I expect it must be based upon some facts?

Ukisgaslit · 05/08/2026 15:46

Race you to Google !

Ukisgaslit · 05/08/2026 15:46

You’ll be faster I’m sure lol

Ukisgaslit · 05/08/2026 15:49

And I assume your use of the term ‘PR’ is a joke re Victoria

But if it was anyone it was that impoverished unknown ‘Albert’ who used the family image to protect the grift . Who would know better than he how much of a grift it was?

Another impoverished marry in who died wealthy - just like Philip

Serenster · 05/08/2026 16:45

You were the one who used the term PR in relation to Victoria? You said the newspaper coverage of her pregnancy and birth was “aggressive PR”

HoraceCope · 05/08/2026 18:38

i didnt realise that Beatrice called her daughter Athena

Andylion · 05/08/2026 18:39

ImpossibleThursday · 05/08/2026 12:12

Given that both her sons have the "st" sound at the end of their names, I'm going for Celeste or Esther or Estelle. Probably Elizabeth as a middle name.

I thought that Ernest and August sounded very Hanoverian. I did a search for female names in the Hanoverian line.

We know Charlotte and Augusta are definitely out. Is Sophia too close to Sophie? Others have suggested Victoria and Amelia. I admit to being curious. I guess I have too much time on my hands.

Eugenie’s baby (no.3)
HoraceCope · 05/08/2026 18:48

Beatrice has Elizabeth as the middle names of both of her daughters

Angelil · 05/08/2026 19:13

ExOptimist · 04/08/2026 18:28

The hand is of an older woman, bet it's Fergie. Will the baby have dual nationality?

Highly unlikely. Most civilised countries don’t grant nationality just based on being born there.

HoldMyWine · 05/08/2026 19:25

HoraceCope · 05/08/2026 18:48

Beatrice has Elizabeth as the middle names of both of her daughters

Got to keep royal adjacent

Needmorelego · 05/08/2026 19:26

HoraceCope · 05/08/2026 18:48

Beatrice has Elizabeth as the middle names of both of her daughters

Almost all the female Great Grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth have Elizabeth as a middle name.
Savannah (daughter of Peter Phillips) and her cousin Mia (daughter of Zara) don't but both their sisters do.
Lilibet obviously doesn't but her first name is based on it.
I expect Elizabeth will be in this new baby's name somewhere.

12234m · 05/08/2026 19:53

Change2banon · 04/08/2026 22:40

She’s had 3, she’s had cancer .. surely her body has been through enough? 😵‍💫 I’m not a fan of the royals by any means, but I love royal baby news .. well any baby news to be fair 😂

Before she had cancer was when I had hope...

Swipe left for the next trending thread