# Prince williams and kate Royal baby is named George Alexander Louis



## kimojohn

On Wednesday, that royal name was conferred on Britain’s 2-day-old royal baby by his oldsters, blue blood William and Catherine, noblewoman of Cambridge, the previous Kate dramatist. though the completely trendy royal couple selected a completely trendy thanks to distribute the news — via Twitter — “Prince George” is as old-school because it gets.

No fewer than six British kings have borne the name “George”; additionally, its personal symbolism for William created it a visible decide for months in dissipated pools across the country. The last King martyr was George VI, William’s great-grandfather, whose brave battle with a speech impediment once he genetic the throne once his brother’s abdication was dramatized within the Oscar-winning film “The King’s Speech.”

And let’s face it. “Charming” was most likely ne'er extremely within the combine.

“It’s a powerful name. ‘Prince martyr of Cambridge’ sounds smart, terribly resonant with the queen’s family,” aforesaid Charles master, editor of Debrett’s baronage & Baronetage.

The length of the name, however, seemed to be one thing of a nod to the twenty first century — despite the “HRH” ahead of it. Four names, not three, Kidd said, have “become the quality norm for members of the house in recent generations.” William has four, as will his father, Charles. thus by royal standards, “George Alexander Louis” is comparatively compendious.

“Louis,” royal-watchers aforesaid, was picked a minimum of partly as a tribute to Joe Louis Mountbatten, Charles’s beloved uncle, World Health Organization was killed once associate degree Irish Republican Army bomb blew up his boat in 1979. “Louis” is additionally one amongst William’s names.

The BBC speculated that “Alexander” might are a preference on the dramatist facet. it's conjointly common in European nation, that had 3 medieval kings named Alexander.

It took Charles and Diana, patrician of Wales, a decent week to call William. therefore the sit up for the latest heir’s name — blue blood martyr, if you haven’t detected, was born weekday — was relatively short. Here, the naming of heirs may be a serious matter, with the monikers of British kings and queens process entire eras yet as periods of fashion, writing and design. assume Elizabethan literature and Victorian homes.


----------



## kimojohn

*George Alexander Louis the son of prince williams*

The names are very traditional Royal names and George and Alexander were the bookies favourite, closely followed by Richard and Louis is after Lord Mountbatten, the Prince of Philip's uncle. The naming of George has come quickly compared to his paternal grandfather Prince Charles who was not named for a month. Also making history today was the reigning monarch meeting a great-great-grandchild in direct line to the throne.

This rare event last happened in 1894 with the child who would become Edward VIII who was met by his great-great grandmother Queen Victoria. This is a significant event in Royal history. Great-Granddad Philip was not with the Queen, he's still recovering from his recent surgery

Uncle Harry visited today and in usual 'Harry' style waved at reporters and has made it known previously that he couldn't 'wait to be an uncle' Auntie Pippa visited last night and the famous rear of the Middleton family was keen to meet her new nephew.

*Kate Middleton Baby Boy* | *George Alexander Louis* | *Will and Kate Baby Boy* | *Kate Middleton Pregnant*


----------



## Art Rock

Best magazine front page on this "event":


----------



## Ingélou

'George' was my Victorian granny's favourite name, and it seems that late-Victorian or Edwardian names are 'in' with today's young people, particularly ones who aspire to be middle class or above. I have nephews called Bertram, Ralph & Jasper, for example, and know of girl babies called Amelia and Grace. So the name George may be traditional but it's also 'hip'.


----------



## moody

kimojohn said:


> The names are very traditional Royal names and George and Alexander were the bookies favourite, closely followed by Richard and Louis is after Lord Mountbatten, the Prince of Philip's uncle. The naming of George has come quickly compared to his paternal grandfather Prince Charles who was not named for a month. Also making history today was the reigning monarch meeting a great-great-grandchild in direct line to the throne.
> 
> This rare event last happened in 1894 with the child who would become Edward VIII who was met by his great-great grandmother Queen Victoria. This is a significant event in Royal history. Great-Granddad Philip was not with the Queen, he's still recovering from his recent surgery
> 
> Uncle Harry visited today and in usual 'Harry' style waved at reporters and has made it known previously that he couldn't 'wait to be an uncle' Auntie Pippa visited last night and the famous rear of the Middleton family was keen to meet her new nephew.
> 
> *Kate Middleton Baby Boy* | *George Alexander Louis* | *Will and Kate Baby Boy* | *Kate Middleton Pregnant*


He's not the Prince of Philip,just Prince Philip.


----------



## Guest

I presume the OP is a Google translation? It's a very quirky post, to say the least!



> It took Charles and Diana, patrician of Wales, a decent week to call William. therefore the sit up for the latest heir's name - blue blood martyr


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Usually I am not that interested in celebrity gossip, but it is good news that the British monarchy now has an heir. Congratulations! :trp::cheers:


----------



## moody

SiegendesLicht said:


> Usually I am not that interested in celebrity gossip, but it is good news that the British monarchy now has an heir. Congratulations! :trp::cheers:


Oh boy, there already was an heir Prince William--this sprog is his son and third in line.


----------



## moody

Art Rock said:


> Best magazine front page on this "event":
> 
> View attachment 21701


Privaqte Eye is a rag.


----------



## Guest

moody said:


> Privaqte Eye is a rag.


But a funny one, unless, on this subject, you are willingly carried along with all the hype.


----------



## moody

MacLeod said:


> But a funny one, unless, on this subject, you are willingly carried along with all the hype.


I'm about all babied out already,but Private Eye can be too snidey although they can be amusing.
But I am a royalist and very keen on supporting them warts and all.


----------



## Skilmarilion

Not sure why the OP posted this here, but anyway ...



moody said:


> But I am a royalist and very keen on supporting them warts and all.


Unfortunately I have never been.

The amount of media coverage that such utterly meaningless events get does bother me. Hopefully we'll be back to hearing some real news sooner rather than later.


----------



## moody

Skilmarilion said:


> Not sure why the OP posted this here, but anyway ...
> 
> Unfortunately I have never been.
> 
> The amount of media coverage that such utterly meaningless events get does bother me. Hopefully we'll be back to hearing some real news sooner rather than later.


Well you see it's not meaningless to the vast majority of the population and round the world.


----------



## Ingélou

I am a Royalist too. Not an especially avid one, but I wouldn't have fancied Cromwell's Interregnum, and I trust a royal family & constitutional monarchy more than I do presidents and politicians. The news has been a bit in-your-face, but I was certainly interested. A welcome to Bonny George! :tiphat:


----------



## moody

Art Rock said:


> Best magazine front page on this "event":
> 
> View attachment 21701


I just wonder what your problem is with OUR royal family or are secretly British ?


----------



## elgar's ghost

If Charles does actually get to the throne have a flutter on him changing his first name - two of the last four kings have done so.


----------



## Art Rock

moody said:


> I just wonder what your problem is with OUR royal family or are secretly British ?


I appreciate a good piece of humor when I see it. No need to get all uptight about it.


----------



## moody

elgars ghost said:


> If Charles does actually get to the throne have a flutter on him changing his first name - two of the last four kings have done so.


To Humphrey probably. But with luck he won't get there ,that might be the end.


----------



## moody

MacLeod said:


> I presume the OP is a Google translation? It's a very quirky post, to say the least!


Can you do that,but in any case it's the funniest thing---or maybe it's Bellbottom ?


----------



## Ravndal

moody said:


> I'm about all babied out already,but Private Eye can be too snidey although they can be amusing.
> But I am a royalist and very keen on supporting them warts and all.


Me too! I'm fascinated by the monarchy.


----------



## Bix

Skilmarilion said:


> Unfortunately I have never been.


Why unfortunately - do you regret not being keen on them?


----------



## Skilmarilion

moody said:


> Well you see it's not meaningless to the vast majority of the population and *round the world*.


I am not interested in really debating this subject, but your statement is rather bold and I'm just not sure there is any basis for it.

I personally don't agree with the fundamental premise of a monarchy in this day and age. When I hear that the Queen has served her country for 60+ years, I find it cringe-worthy. She is not the head of government. She and her family lives a life of luxury provided for by the British people. All the monarchies around the world live as they do whilst people across the globe live in poverty -- people of the very countries Britain once exploited and made part of their empire.

To me, that's just not right.


----------



## Skilmarilion

Bix said:


> Why unfortunately - do you regret not being keen on them?


Not at all, but I do appreciate that the royal family brings joy to a lot of people.


----------



## Bix

Skilmarilion said:


> Not at all, but I do appreciate that the royal family brings joy to a lot of people.


Excuse my question - I was asking ironically.


----------



## moody

Skilmarilion said:


> I am not interested in really debating this subject, but your statement is rather bold and I'm just not sure there is any basis for it.
> 
> I personally don't agree with the fundamental premise of a monarchy in this day and age. When I hear that the Queen has served her country for 60+ years, I find it cringe-worthy. She is not the head of government. She and her family lives a life of luxury provided for by the British people. All the monarchies around the world live as they do whilst people across the glove live in poverty -- people of the very countries Britain once exploited and made part of their empire.
> 
> This is simply my opinion.


Yeah,yeah, I've heard it all before and keep the red flag flying.
I have no intention of debating it with you,none whatever---as for the facts you check them out why don't you.
I think the Royals cost me about 20p a year,they are more or less self sufficient.
We pay for the Queen's overseas visits as she brings in millions.


----------



## brianvds

MacLeod said:


> I presume the OP is a Google translation? It's a very quirky post, to say the least!


I think they used the translation software from "Mars Attacks!"

"And dark is the suede, that mows, like a harvest..."


----------



## brianvds

SiegendesLicht said:


> Usually I am not that interested in celebrity gossip, but it is good news that the British monarchy now has an heir. Congratulations! :trp::cheers:


And what with William having married a commoner, bringing new genes into the family for the first time in centuries, no doubt the average IQ of the royal family has just shot up by a good 50 points or so.


----------



## moody

brianvds said:


> And what with William having married a commoner, bringing new genes into the family for the first time in centuries, no doubt the average IQ of the royal family has just shot up by a good 50 points or so.


Princess Di was a commoner and so was the Elisabeth the Queen Mother judged the way things are.


----------



## Bix

moody said:


> Princess Di was a commoner and so was the Elisabeth the Queen Mother judged the way things are.


Kate Middleton was the first non-aristocratic commoner to marry into the royal family.


----------



## Ramako

I don't generally like the news repeating themselves endlessly over a single individual or event, but at least this one actually has some relevance to the country, as opposed to obsessing over some random celebrity.


----------



## moody

moody said:


> Oh boy, there already was an heir Prince William--this sprog is his son and third in line.


I have to come back on this because of course Prince Charles is the heir.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Skilmarilion said:


> All the monarchies around the world live as they do whilst people across the glove live in poverty -- people of the very countries Britain once exploited and made part of their empire.


 Some of the countries with most affluent populations, like Canada, Australia and New Zealand, used to be part of the Empire. Somehow I doubt they would have got where they are now without the British. Also the average Brit does not exactly live in poverty.


----------



## Bix

But poverty is relative to context.


----------



## Ramako

Bix said:


> But poverty is relative to context.


Tell that to the starving kid in Africa.

Not having an iphone is not poverty. Homelessness is though, and we have too much of that.


----------



## Bix

Ramako said:


> Tell that to the starving kid in Africa.
> 
> Not having an iphone is not poverty. Homelessness is though, and we have too much of that.


Who cares about iPhones, believe it or not there are people in this country who are below the poverty line especially children. It happens here, it happens everywhere, the point is it shouldn't, no matter what country you are in. 10km from the US Capitol building there are some of the poorest people in the states. In inner city Glasgow (Scotland), there are children who can barley afford to eat let alone clothe themselves. The current deprivation in Greece is appalling, we have a powerful industrial country like Brazil and it's rural poor; then China a mega rich country and it's poor populace....... the list is endless. I live in a very poor part of the city and and I see deprivation all around - that's why I'm in the vocation I am in.

Context is everything - food is more expensive here and even though the supposed wages and standard of living are better, there are a multitude of people left behind who cannot pay the higher prices. Fuel is costing more, that's fine for those with money but some families cannot heat their houses. Yes it's significantly worse in Africa, but how do we equalise it, do we say to the poor families here 'right, get out of your house, live in even more abject poverty, then we might consider you worthy enough of being a patronised African person' - no context is everything - we should be pulling others up and some others down.

I suggest you read this http://www.poverty.org.uk/ about my country and its poverty levels before making inane comments like 'tell that to the African starving kid', do you think starving is a state unique to African children?

------------

Addition - I needs to go and take a chill pill......... nah, I'll meditate.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

ALEXANDER is one of his names...

That's a hot name, imho.


----------



## Lunasong

Why would someone post THIS as their very first post? And...TWICE (threads have been merged)?

Anyway, I am happy because I picked the name "George" before the announcement.


----------



## deggial

Skilmarilion said:


> Hopefully we'll be back to hearing some *real news* sooner rather than later.


I was agreeing with you up until this. Don't hold your breath.


----------



## Couchie

Should've guillotined 'em when you had the chance.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Some can't resist having a pop at the UK's empire past....again. The way it keeps on being dredged up you'd think we were the only nation ever to have had one. If the UK had been without imperial ambitions then the empires of France and Spain would have been substantially larger than they already were and those of Portugal and the Netherlands would probably have been expanded here and there, too - so would that have made the world a better place?


----------



## brianvds

Bix said:


> I suggest you read this http://www.poverty.org.uk/ about my country and its poverty levels before making inane comments like 'tell that to the African starving kid', do you think starving is a state unique to African children?


Having looked around that site, I cannot help but to substantially agree with Ramako: there are few Britons who have even the vaguest clue what real poverty is, and in the western welfare states, anyone who is genuinely starving is a volunteer. This is not some kind of insult, because this is precisely what makes the countries of western Europe so unique in history: they do not allow people to die in the street of hunger, and preventable or easily treatable disease.

From my perspective, their populations are often incredibly ungrateful for what they have.



elgars ghost said:


> Some can't resist having a pop at the UK's empire past....again. The way it keeps on being dredged up you'd think we were the only nation ever to have had one. If the UK had been without imperial ambitions then the empires of France and Spain would have been substantially larger than they already were and those of Portugal and the Netherlands would probably have been expanded here and there, too - so would that have made the world a better place?


Oh, you'll never live it down. Here in South Africa, you have still not been forgiven for the concentration camps of the South African War more than a hundred years ago. Und ze Germans vill never live down ze Nazi era. And us white South Africans will never be allowed to forget the horrors of apartheid. So it goes.

Interestingly, no one ever has a word to say about the atrocities committed by some of the pre-colonial African empires...

Having done some introductory reading on history, it seems to me people are actually pretty much the same everywhere: they don't create empires because they are evil, but simply because that is in general what people do when they have enough power to do so, and their race or ethnic background has zilch to do with it.


----------



## moody

I hope you are not deliberately misleading anyone.
The concentration camps you mention,not to be compared with the Nazi ones, were from the Boer war. You call it the South African War? This was between the British and the settlers with Dutch backgrounds no black South Africans were involved,
the black peoples were no friends of the Boers. It was these Afrikaans people who were later mostly responsible for Apartheid.


----------



## brianvds

moody said:


> I hope you are not deliberately misleading anyone.
> The concentration camps you mention,not to be compared with the Nazi ones, were from the Boer war. You call it the South African War?


Yes, it is nowadays often referred to as the South African War. I thought this term is nowadays more recognizable. When I was a kid it was more commonly referred to as the Anglo-Boer War. Point is, among many Afrikaners, there is to this day much bitterness about it. Quite absurdly so, seeing as those were different times and not a single person who participated in it is alive anymore.



> This was between the British and the settlers with Dutch backgrounds no black South Africans were involved,
> the black peoples were no friends of the Boers.


There were thousands of Black South Africans involved, on both sides. More Black South Africans died in British concentration camps than Afrikaners. Of course, those same embittered Afrikaners mentioned above conveniently ignore the outrages their own ancestors also committed.



> It was these Afrikaans people who were later mostly responsible for Apartheid.


Mostly, but not entirely - the first apartheid-style laws were passed while the Britons were still pretty much in control, and during Apartheid, English-speaking white South Africans generally supported apartheid as well, or paid lip service to opposing it without actually doing much. (It is noteworthy that most of the white South Africans who emigrated after the end of apartheid were not Afrikaners, but English-speaking ex-liberals, who spent decades clamoring for apartheid to end, only to flee in a panic when it did!)

Anyway, nowadays white South Africans tend to all be lumped together when it comes to playing the blame game, and using the phrase "you people" , as in "it was you people who did this and that."

Well, yes, in a sense it was, just as I can today tell people from Britain that it was "you people" who killed "us" in the concentration camps, or tell modern-day Germans that it was "you people" who killed the Jews and Romany and gays.

It's a pointless kind of accusation, but it is pretty common all over the world. Personally, I am rather mistrustful of nationalism taken to this sort of extreme. In fairness, one should note that this game is often played in jest rather than in all seriousness.


----------



## Guest

Huilunsoittaja said:


> ALEXANDER is one of his names...
> 
> That's a hot name, imho.


Well, it is getting kind o' warm around here! (And yes, it's a great name, though I tend to use one of the shortened versions most of the time)


----------



## Bix

brianvds said:


> Having looked around that site, I cannot help but to substantially agree with Ramako: there are few Britons who have even the vaguest clue what real poverty is, and in the western welfare states, anyone who is genuinely starving is a volunteer. This is not some kind of insult, because this is precisely what makes the countries of western Europe so unique in history: they do not allow people to die in the street of hunger, and preventable or easily treatable disease.


Yes, countries in Western Europe have adopted this attitude, and I think there was a law passed this year in the European Union that said we are now we have to let people get very ill and close to death before we help them so that they can fully appreciate the plight of people around the world who are really ill or actually suffering from poverty related illness.

Yes there are people in western societies who take everything for granted and don't give a damn, and many of the young are growing up with disgraceful attitudes to the world around them, but this never ending syllogism of 'that person is selfish and ignorant, that other person is selfish and ignorant, therefore all the people must be selfish and ignorant' is ignorant in itself and is not a fair indicator of the attitude of people living in the UK.

To clarify, I am not lessening the plight of the poor around the world, I have seen it and do what I can in my own way to help. I think that's why the iPhone comment irritated me so much - I have seen children die in war torn countries and I've seen children in the UK who come to school having only the school uniform for clothes and nothing else and during the week only eat what school provides and nothing at home - I have never treated either situation as one being prime over the other. To that child in Bosnia who is dying from having his leg blown off and doesn't understand, to the child in England who cannot concentrate at school because he hasn't eaten - to each child that was the worst for them - and that is context.


----------



## Ramako

My remark about Africa was ill-chosen, coming as it does from an over-played stereotype.

Nevertheless, the reason even Greece in its current situation has so many illegal immigrants is because pretty much any rung on its ladder is better than what they are used to from their own country.

I agree with brianvds that people complaining of poverty in rich Western European countries must largely look pretty strange to people outside of the area. Not only that, but look at our own history. I come from a reasonably well-off family, and they didn't have heating 30/40 years ago; now you are trying to use that as a means to persuade me of the abject poverty in our country?

I looked at your site, but while the long confusing terms probably mask suffering, it only really persuaded me more strongly of my original position:



> To summarise: there is no obvious way of defining an absolute poverty threshold except the $1 or $2 a day thresholds defined on the grounds that this is the minimum needed for mere survival. But in a UK setting, such thresholds have no import: no one in the UK lives on incomes anywhere near this low.


----------



## Ramako

Well, I apologise for the iphone comment. But when the relative notion of poverty is prioritised so much it is not hard to envision a case where not having an iphone _would_ count as poverty.

This is getting too political, so I will leave it here.

P.S. I should perhaps clarify that I am from the North-East of England.


----------



## Ingélou

* Poverty in the third world is terrible & not to be compared with poverty in this country
but
* the life of the homeless in the UK is dreadful; yet when I was young, the problem barely existed
plus
* in the last few years the demand for food banks here - yes, food banks - has grown; what must it be like as a single parent worrying & worrying about how to feed your children...?
plus
* is there any point in thrashing over the past? We know that human beings are savage and violent when trapped in dreadful situations, or when the 'group partisan mentality' kicks in. 
plus
* wouldn't it be nice on a thread about the royal baby *not* to opine that it would be better if his relations had been guillotined?

Welcome, Baby George, and let's hope that when/if you become King, the world will be a more equitable place & that people have enough to eat and homes to live in all over the globe.

Have a nice day, everyone...


----------



## PetrB

HO EFFIN HUM

And now the world, royal or otherwise, gets "Baby Boring."

Any idiot can make a baby, have a baby. The verdict is out on this one for about eighteen or more years -- which is the next time anyone has any right to expect to hear anything about it, though those rights will be massively infringed upon.

Loved the "Woman had baby." headline -- says it all. Surprised "the Onion" did not get to it first.

British headlines, forty years hence: "Baby George for President!"


----------



## Taggart

The OP wished to congratulate a) the British people b) the happy couple. Fine. I agree.

If there are those among us who do not wish to do so, fine, I respect your right to disagree. But please do not spoil a thread by off topic comments.

If there are those among us who wish to make points about a) republicanism b) world poverty c) the state of the media - fine. But there are specific areas of the site reserved for political discussion and this is not the place.

It would be nice if people respected the wishes of the OP and either made on topic contributions or stayed away.


----------



## PetrB

moody said:


> Well you see it's not meaningless to the vast majority of the population and round the world.


Outsider here, seeing them as superfluous unless the nation is filled with people terrified to grow up, be on their own, and not have a mum and or dad figure looming over them all. Other than that, they appear to many an outsider as virtually useless beings.

I know, "...but it is a great tradition." -- Great only if it has active meaning, not a glorious past Potemkin Village luster, which seems to be more what it is than isn't.

So, does Royalist = Sentimentalist?


----------



## Bix

Ramako said:


> My remark about Africa was ill-chosen, coming as it does from an over-played stereotype.
> 
> Nevertheless, the reason even Greece in its current situation has so many illegal immigrants is because pretty much any rung on its ladder is better than what they are used to from their own country.
> 
> I agree with brianvds that people complaining of poverty in rich Western European countries must largely look pretty strange to people outside of the area. Not only that, but look at our own history. I come from a reasonably well-off family, and they didn't have heating 30/40 years ago; now you are trying to use that as a means to persuade me of the abject poverty in our country?
> 
> I looked at your site, but while the long confusing terms probably mask suffering, it only really persuaded me more strongly of my original position:


I do agree with you - the iphone thing just bothered me. I think maybe I feel guilty - I have spent my life living frugally, using any excess money to help others; I recently have a different job where I need to communicate with a team across a large area so I bought myself an iPhone - i felt guilty then (im not fond of spending money on myself, I dont celebrate my birthday or any other present giving time of year) and I felt even more guilty with your comment. I should be ashamed.

Sorry for all my rants.


----------



## Bix

Ramako said:


> Well, I apologise for the iphone comment. But when the relative notion of poverty is prioritised so much it is not hard to envision a case where not having an iphone _would_ count as poverty.


my new response is :lol:


----------



## Ingélou

PetrB said:


> So, does Royalist = Sentimentalist?


No.
Please don't assume that a person who happens to disagree with you is not using logic, reason, knowledge of history, or considered thought.


----------



## moody

PetrB said:


> Outsider here, seeing them as superfluous unless the nation is filled with people terrified to grow up, be on their own, and not have a mum and or dad figure looming over them all. Other than that, they appear to many an outsider as virtually useless beings.
> 
> I know, "...but it is a great tradition." -- Great only if it has active meaning, not a glorious past Potemkin Village luster, which seems to be more what it is than isn't.
> 
> So, does Royalist = Sentimentalist?


Not at all,firstly what I certainly don't want is a president who is voted for and therefore inevitably brings corruption.
Secondly the Queen alone brings millions into this country.
Do you realise how much money we will make from this birth ?
The Royal Family are hard working and worth a lot to us.
Meanwhile cast your eye over Taggart's post.


----------



## Ramako

Bix said:


> I do agree with you - the iphone thing just bothered me. I think maybe I feel guilty - I have spent my life living frugally, using any excess money to help others; I recently have a different job where I need to communicate with a team across a large area so I bought myself an iPhone - i felt guilty then (im not fond of spending money on myself, I dont celebrate my birthday or any other present giving time of year) and I felt even more guilty with your comment. I should be ashamed.
> 
> Sorry for all my rants.


I have already apologised, Bix, but you have no need of doing so. Sometimes my humour is in very poor taste and I think your reaction was entirely reasonable given my manner of expression, which was not at all appropriate.


----------



## Ingélou

Ramako & Bix, you noble pair, you...!

This reminds me of Chaucer's Franklin's Tale, where each of the characters acts generously and forgoes his own advantage, and at the end, the Franklin asks which of them possessed the most 'gentillesse':

Lordinges, this question wolde I aske now,
Which was the moste free, as thinketh yowe?
Now telleth me, er that ye ferther wende. -
I can na-more, my tale is at an ende.

(PS - in 20th century translation, was it Bill - or was it Ben?  )


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Ingenue said:


> Welcome, Baby George, and let's hope that when/if you become King, the world will be a more equitable place & that people have enough to eat and homes to live in all over the globe.


And let us hope that, with all his fine royal education, he wil grow into a man of noble mind, able to recognize true beauty and maybe some day become a classical music patron 

But first and foremost, let him grow into a good Briton and a good King who cares for the well-being of his people above all.


----------



## Xaltotun

"George Alexander Louis" is a great, traditional and classy name - as it should be, with royalty. Maybe he would have deserved a fourth name as well, but these three are very good. I wish all the best for the future King!


----------



## LordBlackudder

good name .


----------



## Ryan

By time he is King, London will look like one of these three pictures.


----------



## Couchie

I hope for the 2nd one. Public transit looks a lot more fun in the future.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Couchie said:


> I hope for the 2nd one. Public transit looks a lot more fun in the future.


Don't bank on it - even in open water there would probably still be a Congestion Charge.


----------



## brianvds

Here in South Africa, many are of course of the opinion that the royal couple really could have thrown a Nelson in there as well, at little extra cost.


----------



## Sid James

kimojohn said:


> ....
> 
> No fewer than six British kings have borne the name "George"; ...
> 
> ... Here, the naming of heirs may be a serious matter, with the monikers of British kings and queens process entire eras yet as periods of fashion, writing and design. assume Elizabethan literature and Victorian homes.


Well its a good name and my favourite architecture is Georgian - the long over 100 year era (up to mid 19th century, before Queen Vic) when you got a succession of Georges on the throne. I love the restraint and elegance of the buildings of that era. In the UK, also its colonies at the time, you had some of the finest buildings. Unfortunately many where demolished in the name of so called progress (the vandalism of Boston was the worst example), but enough have survived such as this iconic row of buildings in Bath:










As for music you also got George Frederic *Handel* during this period, and the visitor to London, *Haydn.*

You also got the painter who specialised in horses, *George Stubbs* (another George!) -










So I guess sometimes in the future we'll have another Georgian era?


----------



## moody

MacLeod said:


> I presume the OP is a Google translation? It's a very quirky post, to say the least!


The most extraordinary thing I've seen--what about Joe Louis Mountbatten ? That's a monicker with punch behind it !


----------



## moody

SiegendesLicht said:


> Some of the countries with most affluent populations, like Canada, Australia and New Zealand, used to be part of the Empire. Somehow I doubt they would have got where they are now without the British. Also the average Brit does not exactly live in poverty.


Don't forget that they are part of the Commonwealth and the Queen is the head of that.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Ingenue said:


> 'George' was my Victorian granny's favourite name, and it seems that late-Victorian or Edwardian names are 'in' with today's young people, particularly ones who aspire to be middle class or above. I have nephews called Bertram, Ralph & Jasper, for example, and know of girl babies called Amelia and Grace. So the name George may be traditional but it's also 'hip'.


In my time at school I have been in classes with people called George, Grace, Charles, William, Amelia, John etc. there are heaps. I've never thought of them as anything but normal names people have today!

As to the woman having a baby.....well my mother gave birth to me how come the whole world didn't celebrate that 16 years and 29 days ago? And what's more, I am the eldest in this generation of children in my family......hmph.


----------



## elgar's ghost

If William's son gets to the throne I hope he takes up the Alexander option - a great name for a king plus Britain's never had a monarch with that name, although Scotland had three in the medieval era when England and Scotland were still separate.


----------



## Ingélou

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> In my time at school I have been in classes with people called George, Grace, Charles, William, Amelia, John etc. there are heaps. I've never thought of them as anything but normal names people have today!
> 
> As to the woman having a baby.....well my mother gave birth to me how come the whole world didn't celebrate that 16 years and 29 days ago? And what's more, I am the eldest in this generation of children in my family......hmph.


George, John, William & Charles don't really count as Edwardian names in the same way as Beatrice & Percy, say. They are perennials (though William & Charles had a bit of a downturn in the 1960s) so I'd agree that they are 'normal' names.

Amelia and Grace are names that became fashionable fairly recently - maybe when you were born! But as you weren't of royal stock*, we didn't celebrate your birth. May I make retrospective reparation by celebrating you *now*? 

Having been on the planet a while longer, I have seen how the fashions have changed. The most common names in my schooldays for girls were Susan, Janet, Anne, Brenda, Sheila; for boys, Robert, James, Stephen, Tony & the odd Nigel or two. In the next decade, Sophie & Karen came in, with things like Lee & Garry & Wayne. In the eighties, surnames like Kelly; in the nineties, bible names like Joshua & Nathan, though Rebecca & Rachel were 'in' much earlier ... and so on.

'Grace' was out when I was young because it was associated with Gracie Fields, a marvellous woman in my opinion, but not the height of fashion in the 50s & 60s. 'Amelia' was a typical name for a Victorian heroine in a comedy sketch; ditto Jasper. Sir Jasper was the moustache-twirling villain who ties the heroine to the railway track. She'd probably be rescued by the hero, Ralph. 

CoAG, I never realised you were so young. I am astounded. So young, and so talented - gosh! :tiphat:

(* - this is probably 'how come' the 'whole world' didn't celebrate your birth. After all, you weren't a talented composer in the cradle.)


----------



## Guest

Ingenue said:


> CoAG, I never realised you were so young. I am astounded. So young, and so talented - gosh! :tiphat:


Are you sure you're not being taken in by this mediocre 76-yr old's virtual personality?

Come to think of it, isn't _your _name a contradiction of some of the so-called facts you've posted about yourself?

And before anyone else points it out, no, I'm not a drawling cowboy detective either.


----------



## aleazk

That's nice, now we have to buy a new ego-meter... the old one has just exploded. :devil:


----------



## Ingélou

MacLeod said:


> Are you sure you're not being taken in by this mediocre 76-yr old's virtual personality?
> 
> Come to think of it, isn't _your _name a contradiction of some of the so-called facts you've posted about yourself?
> 
> And before anyone else points it out, no, I'm not a drawling cowboy detective either.


CoAG says he was born 16 years & 29 days ago - you think he's being economical with the actualité?

I chose my name because I'm inexperienced where music is concerned. Ingénue = naive, artless (English equivalent, 'ingenuous'), but yes, the Ingénue in a play is usually a young heroine. However, I refer to my age in posts & profile, so I'm not misleading anyone. Plus, the alternative was Ignoramus - too harsh, & though based on the Latin first person plural of the verb 'not to know', it sounds masculine.

I'm a huge fan of Lully & Rameau - do you think I should change my user-name to 'Madame la Marquise'?


----------



## Op.123

kimojohn said:


> On Wednesday, that royal name was conferred on Britain's 2-day-old royal baby by his oldsters, blue blood William and Catherine, noblewoman of Cambridge, the previous Kate dramatist. though the completely trendy royal couple selected a completely trendy thanks to distribute the news - via Twitter - "Prince George" is as old-school because it gets.
> 
> No fewer than six British kings have borne the name "George"; additionally, its personal symbolism for William created it a visible decide for months in dissipated pools across the country. The last King martyr was George VI, William's great-grandfather, whose brave battle with a speech impediment once he genetic the throne once his brother's abdication was dramatized within the Oscar-winning film "The King's Speech."
> 
> And let's face it. "Charming" was most likely ne'er extremely within the combine.
> 
> "It's a powerful name. 'Prince martyr of Cambridge' sounds smart, terribly resonant with the queen's family," aforesaid Charles master, editor of Debrett's baronage & Baronetage.
> 
> The length of the name, however, seemed to be one thing of a nod to the twenty first century - despite the "HRH" ahead of it. Four names, not three, Kidd said, have "become the quality norm for members of the house in recent generations." William has four, as will his father, Charles. thus by royal standards, "George Alexander Louis" is comparatively compendious.
> 
> "Louis," royal-watchers aforesaid, was picked a minimum of partly as a tribute to Joe Louis Mountbatten, Charles's beloved uncle, World Health Organization was killed once associate degree Irish Republican Army bomb blew up his boat in 1979. "Louis" is additionally one amongst William's names.
> 
> The BBC speculated that "Alexander" might are a preference on the dramatist facet. it's conjointly common in European nation, that had 3 medieval kings named Alexander.
> 
> It took Charles and Diana, patrician of Wales, a decent week to call William. therefore the sit up for the latest heir's name - blue blood martyr, if you haven't detected, was born weekday - was relatively short. Here, the naming of heirs may be a serious matter, with the monikers of British kings and queens process entire eras yet as periods of fashion, writing and design. assume Elizabethan literature and Victorian homes.


This doesn't read well.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Ingenue said:


> George, John, William & Charles don't really count as Edwardian names in the same way as Beatrice & Percy, say. They are perennials (though William & Charles had a bit of a downturn in the 1960s) so I'd agree that they are 'normal' names.
> 
> Amelia and Grace are names that became fashionable fairly recently - maybe when you were born! But as you weren't of royal stock*, we didn't celebrate your birth. May I make retrospective reparation by celebrating you *now*?
> 
> Having been on the planet a while longer, I have seen how the fashions have changed. The most common names in my schooldays for girls were Susan, Janet, Anne, Brenda, Sheila; for boys, *Robert, James, Stephen, Tony* & the odd Nigel or two. In the next decade, Sophie & Karen came in, with things like Lee & Garry & Wayne. In the eighties, surnames like Kelly; in the nineties, bible names like Joshua & Nathan, though Rebecca & Rachel were 'in' much earlier ... and so on.
> 
> 'Grace' was out when I was young because it was associated with Gracie Fields, a marvellous woman in my opinion, but not the height of fashion in the 50s & 60s. 'Amelia' was a typical name for a Victorian heroine in a comedy sketch; ditto Jasper. Sir Jasper was the moustache-twirling villain who ties the heroine to the railway track. She'd probably be rescued by the hero, Ralph.
> 
> CoAG, I never realised you were so young. I am astounded. So young, and so talented - gosh! :tiphat:
> 
> (* - this is probably 'how come' the 'whole world' didn't celebrate your birth. After all, you weren't a talented composer in the cradle.)


More familiar names!


----------



## moody

Burroughs said:


> This doesn't read well.


That apparently is what Google translator turns out--it would be funny but what if was something very serious ?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I know a person named Edward who is 16 and a half.


----------



## Op.123

composerofavantgarde said:


> i know a person named edward who is 16 and a half.


_*wow!! *_ .


----------



## Op.123

Ingenue said:


> George, John, William & Charles don't really count as Edwardian names in the same way as Beatrice & Percy, say. They are perennials (though William & Charles had a bit of a downturn in the 1960s) so I'd agree that they are 'normal' names.
> 
> Amelia and Grace are names that became fashionable fairly recently - maybe when you were born! But as you weren't of royal stock*, we didn't celebrate your birth. May I make retrospective reparation by celebrating you *now*?
> 
> Having been on the planet a while longer, I have seen how the fashions have changed. The most common names in my schooldays for girls were Susan, Janet, Anne, Brenda, Sheila; for boys, Robert, James, Stephen, Tony & the odd Nigel or two. In the next decade, Sophie & Karen came in, with things like Lee & Garry & Wayne. In the eighties, surnames like Kelly; in the nineties, bible names like Joshua & Nathan, though Rebecca & Rachel were 'in' much earlier ... and so on.
> 
> 'Grace' was out when I was young because it was associated with Gracie Fields, a marvellous woman in my opinion, but not the height of fashion in the 50s & 60s. 'Amelia' was a typical name for a Victorian heroine in a comedy sketch; ditto Jasper. Sir Jasper was the moustache-twirling villain who ties the heroine to the railway track. She'd probably be rescued by the hero, Ralph. (had to take a smiley out because of smiley restrictions)
> 
> CoAG, I never realised you were so young. I am astounded. So young, and so talented - gosh! :tiphat:
> 
> (* - this is probably 'how come' the 'whole world' didn't celebrate your birth. After all, you weren't a talented composer in the cradle.)


I am younger (14) and even more talented... :lol:

*joke*


----------



## Bix

Burroughs said:


> I am younger (14) and even more talented... :lol:
> 
> *joke*


let your fellows here at TC be the judge of that - I know who my money is on


----------



## Op.123

Bix said:


> let your fellows here at TC be the judge of that - I know who my money is on


Me of course... :lol:

*joke*


----------



## drpraetorus

I was hoping for an Arthur or Richard. But then being an anti-monarchical republican, I don't really have a say.


----------



## Guest

drpraetorus said:


> I was hoping for an Arthur or Richard. But then being an anti-monarchical republican, I don't really have a say.


You are just as entitled to have a say as the most ardent royalist (moody, for example).

If one votes Republican, but a Democrat is elected, isn't one entitled to an opinion about what the Democrat does? Our Queen 'rules' over all her subjects - not just those who love her and her family to pieces and will stand for days in all weathers staring at the front door of a hospital in the hope of a glimpse of a future (possible) monarch.

Personally, my money was on George all along...well, virtual money.


----------



## Antihero




----------



## moody

drpraetorus said:


> I was hoping for an Arthur or Richard. But then being an anti-monarchical republican, I don't really have a say.


Well that's alright,but you couldn't be a pro-monarchy republican could you?


----------



## moody

Antihero said:


>


How petty and childish and we have nothing like this here, this thread was not put out to attract moronic comments.


----------



## Taggart

moody said:


> How petty and childish and we have nothing like this here, this thread was not put out to attract moronic comments.


Unfair to morons .


----------



## Guest

moody said:


> Privaqte Eye is a rag.


Nonsense. Private Eye is an enjoyable, thoroughly scurrilous magazine that has helped to expose many hypocrites, crooks, liars, fools and other similar types who claim to be knights in shining armour swinging the simple sword of truth.


----------



## Ingélou

I don't read it, but I've picked up many a good joke from it when they've been current.

e.g. I taught a boy called Wilson in the baby class of a prep school, where surnames were used, and we all called him Wizlon after the Superhero parody of the Labour prime minister in Private Eye. Great fun!


----------



## Taggart

Ditto. Any rag that's brought us pseud's corner, lord gnome, Barry McKenzie and the grauniad can't be all bad.


----------



## moody

TalkingHead said:


> Nonsense. Private Eye is an enjoyable, thoroughly scurrilous magazine that has helped to expose many hypocrites, crooks, liars, fools and other similar types who claim to be knights in shining armour swinging the simple sword of truth.


Don't tell me I('m talking nonsense it's a RAG. Furthermore,what has that got to do with a thread about naming a baby ?
This is no political matter,keep your prejudices for your left-wing friends.


----------



## Guest

moody said:


> Don't tell me I('m talking nonsense it's a RAG. Furthermore,what has that got to do with a thread about naming a baby ? This is no political matter,keep your prejudices for your left-wing friends.


Once again, nonsense. It's not a rag for the reasons I gave above. Reading and comprehension (not to mention spelling and spacing - Cf. your posting above) are clearly difficult issues for you Moody, and I will do my utmost to help you. In the meantime, to answer your question, I simply posted a riposte to your categorical dismissal of Private Eye. Get a grip, there's a good fellow.


----------



## moody

TalkingHead said:


> Once again, nonsense. It's not a rag for the reasons I gave above. Reading and comprehension (not to mention spelling and spacing - Cf. your posting above) are clearly difficult issues for you Moody, and I will do my utmost to help you. In the meantime, to answer your question, I simply posted a riposte to your categorical dismissal of Private Eye. Get a grip, there's a good fellow.


So it's not a rag because you have decided it is not,well that's fine.
It's a rag and you are insolent--but of course I already was aware of this fact.
I advise you to back off before things get complicated,I consider what you've said to be trolling without a doubt--get my drift ?


----------



## Guest

moody said:


> So it's not a rag because you have decided it is not,well that's fine.
> It's a rag and you are insolent--but of course I already was aware of this fact.
> I advise you to back off before things get complicated,I consider what you've said to be trolling without a doubt--get my drift ?


You really are being foolish. To take your twisted logic, Private Eye (hereafter 'PEye') *is* a rag because _*you*_ say so, and when I take an opposing stance you get all hot under the collar. I agree there is a heatwave across Europe at the moment, but do try to keep your cool, it is most unbecoming.
So pay attention and read the following carefully: PEye is _not_ a rag, I am _not_ being insolent, and I will not back off from an impotent, choleric little bully like you.


----------



## moody

TalkingHead said:


> You really are being foolish. To take your twisted logic, Private Eye (hereafter 'PEye') *is* a rag because _*you*_ say so, and when I take an opposing stance you get all hot under the collar. I agree there is a heatwave across Europe at the moment, but do try to keep your cool, it is most unbecoming.
> So pay attention and read the following carefully: PEye is _not_ a rag, I am _not_ being insolent, and I will not back off from a little bully like you.


Let me assure you that I'm not little,as for bullying I would have thought that you have attempted to bully your way into an innocent thread with your ranting. Also you are certainly being most unpleasant and insolent.


----------



## Guest

moody said:


> Let me assure you that I'm not little,as for bullying I would have thought that you have attempted to bully your way into an innocent thread with your ranting. Also you are certainly being most unpleasant and insolent.


I'm done with bar-room bores like you. Let others (forum members and moderators alike) decide who is being unpleasant and objectionable. You seem to view any opposing stance as insolence - this is a serious character flaw on your part and I urge you to address it.
By the way, your quote of what I posted in #94 omits the adjectives 'impotent' and 'choleric'.


----------



## moody

TalkingHead said:


> I'm done with bar-room bores like you. Let others (forum members and moderators alike) decide who is being unpleasant and objectionable. You seem to view any opposing stance as insolence - this is a serious character flaw on your part and I urge you to address it.
> By the way, your quote of what I posted in #94 omits the adjectives 'impotent' and 'choleric'.


You are quite right,let's find out now.


----------



## Ukko

Fortunately, the baby has probably not been exposed to this undignified behavior.

_Talking_ says that this publication is scurrilous, but not a rag. Is this possible? Judging from _Talking_'s description, it indulges in what would be described a century ago as _yellow journalism_. Is that a raggish quality?


----------



## Guest

moody said:


> You are quite right,let's find out now.


Do you mean find out via a poll of forum members, or reporting me to the Mods? If the latter, I urge you to run along and do so quickly without further ado. Don't forget to take along an apple for teacher. And make sure you wash it first. Off you go, then.


----------



## Antihero

moody said:


> How petty and childish and we have nothing like this here, this thread was not put out to attract moronic comments.


----------



## moody

Hilltroll72 said:


> Fortunately, the baby has probably not been exposed to this undignified behavior.
> 
> _Talking_ says that this publication is scurrilous, but not a rag. Is this possible? Judging from _Talking_'s description, it indulges in what would be described a century ago as _yellow journalism_. Is that a raggish quality?


Interesting point.
Scurrilous ---Given to the use of vulgar,coarse or abusive language,foul mouthed.
And there's a man who was criticising my use of language.
Jolly good,i give way it's not a rag it's only scurrilous.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> Fortunately, the baby has probably not been exposed to this undignified behavior.
> _Talking_ says that this publication is scurrilous, but not a rag. Is this possible? Judging from _Talking_'s description, it indulges in what would be described a century ago as _yellow journalism_. Is that a raggish quality?


Ah yes, I had quite forgotten that where Hardy blusters on Laurel is never far behind.


----------



## moody

Antihero said:


>


Not in the least interested,seen them.


----------



## Guest

moody said:


> Interesting point.
> Scurrilous ---Given to the use of vulgar,coarse or abusive language,foul mouthed.
> And there's a man who was criticising my use of language.
> Jolly good,i give way it's not a rag it's only scurrilous.


As I said above, you have issues with reading. A second definition of scurrilous gives 'humorously insulting'. Do try and read a bit deeper, there's a good fellow. 
Anyway, how's the poll going? Any feedback?


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> Do you mean find out via a poll of forum members, or reporting me to the Mods? If the latter, I urge you to run along and do so quickly without further ado. Don't forget to take along an apple for teacher. And make sure you wash it first. Off you go, then.


If you are polling on whether we should have a poll on this, my vote is YES! And I think that Hilltroll72 (aka Polltroll72) should set it up!

(Cue _moody_ telling me to butt out . . . )


----------



## Guest

Dear DrMike, I don't trust either Laurel or Hardy (HT or M) to be objective enough to run a credible poll. In fact I think we should have a poll to see if I'm the only one out of a sample panel of 100 who believes 1 out of 2 old codgers are really bar-room bores.


----------



## moody

DrMike said:


> If you are polling on whether we should have a poll on this, my vote is YES! And I think that Hilltroll72 (aka Polltroll72) should set it up!
> 
> (Cue _moody_ telling me to butt out . . . )


Certainly--butt out ,but yes set up a poll.


----------



## Guest

I wrote above "1 out of 2 _are_...". Not sure of my grammar there. I'll let the bores correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> Dear DrMike, I don't trust either Laurel or Hardy (HT or M) to be objective enough to run a credible poll. In fact I think we should have a poll to see if I'm the only one out of a sample panel of 100 who believes 1 out of 2 old codgers are really bar-room bores.


Nah, Hilltroll is just a lovable, cuddly old bear. He only pretends to be a curmudgeon. Moody? Not so sure, but since he really likes me, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But since they are the founding members of the DrMike fan club, I have nothing but the warmest of feelings for both of them.

For the record, I have never seen, nor read, Private Eye, so I have no idea how it should be classified.


----------



## moody

TalkingHead said:


> I wrote above "1 out of 2 _are_...". Not sure of my grammar there. I'll let the bores correct me if I'm wrong.


I imagine you probably are,why change now/


----------



## Guest

moody said:


> Certainly--butt out ,but yes set up a poll.


Oh, I'm sorry - was this a private conversation? Have I stumbled into your PMs? Hard for me to tell - as I mentioned in another thread, I seem to have become like Neo in the Matrix - the code can no longer contain me. So I guess it is possible that I stumbled into your PMs with TalkingHead. Better watch out - he might "take you to the river," and has even been known to have fun "burning down the house."


----------



## Guest

moody said:


> I imagine you probably are,why change now/


You know, I have read much from you over time, but lately you seem a lot more agitated and quick to anger on here. Something wrong? Share your feelings with the group. After all, we are just one big happy family. Maybe we can even devise a poll of options to help your regain your serenity.


----------



## Krummhorn

And we (again) stray completely off topic ... and another completely genuine thread shot to hell!! This is becoming very tiring ... having to close threads. 

Thread Closed ... 

If you don't like the subject matter of a thread, then just don't participate in it. 

If you want to get personal or engage in a one on one argument, then do that within the confines of Private Messaging. 

But, remember that PM's can be reported by the receiver, and if any forum rules are violated within PM's, and it gets reported, the same penalties can apply ... 

Geezo peezo people ... enough is enough.


----------

