›

What Should Be The New Royal Baby's Name? (And Does Anyone Really Care?)

WillyGaloreWillyGalore
edited July 2013 in General Discussion Posts: 6,396
I wouldn't say I don't entirely give a damn, but James would be nice for obvious reasons ;)
«134

Comments

  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,831
    Arthur like king Arthur. Might as well. I'm republican so don't really care, I found the way media cover the royal family here in the UK utterly sycophantic.
  • PerdoggPerdogg
    Posts: 686
    I would like Edward or George.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,809
    Henry sounds quite regal to me.
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    Actually does anyone else think 'Of Persia' would be a real cool name?
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    Ludovico wrote:
    Arthur like king Arthur. Might as well. I'm republican so don't really care, I found the way media cover the royal family here in the UK utterly sycophantic.

    I'm kind of in the middle on this. I don't really care one way or another about having a royal family. It makes no impact on my life.

    The BBC's coverage has been quite intolerable. I read an article yesterday about the luxurious private suite Kate was in, equipped with satellite television, Wi-Fi and a fridge. Nice for the UK taxpayers to know that whilst everyone else has to suffer with the NHS. Our media coverage in this country seems to have lowered itself to tabloid level.


  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,809
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Arthur like king Arthur. Might as well. I'm republican so don't really care, I found the way media cover the royal family here in the UK utterly sycophantic.

    I'm kind of in the middle on this. I don't really care one way or another about having a royal family. It makes no impact on my life.

    The BBC's coverage has been quite intolerable. I read an article yesterday about the luxurious private suite Kate was in, equipped with satellite television, Wi-Fi and a fridge. Nice for the UK taxpayers to know that whilst everyone else has to suffer with the NHS. Our media coverage in this country seems to have lowered itself to tabloid level.


    I'm actually a monarchist, but I have to agree here. I think we in Britain go mad at very little encouragement these days. We clearly live in post-Princess Diana times.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,831
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Arthur like king Arthur. Might as well. I'm republican so don't really care, I found the way media cover the royal family here in the UK utterly sycophantic.

    I'm kind of in the middle on this. I don't really care one way or another about having a royal family. It makes no impact on my life.

    The BBC's coverage has been quite intolerable. I read an article yesterday about the luxurious private suite Kate was in, equipped with satellite television, Wi-Fi and a fridge. Nice for the UK taxpayers to know that whilst everyone else has to suffer with the NHS. Our media coverage in this country seems to have lowered itself to tabloid level.

    The BBC yesterday said the Duchess was in very good hands. I thought: "Geez, really? Who would have thought?" The amount of clichés they shoveled at the audience, it was insulting.
  • steven88steven88
    Posts: 21
    Jaws :P
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited July 2013 Posts: 17,809
    steven88 wrote:
    Jaws :P

    Really? Must have started teething early, then.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    Jacob. Pick something fresh and new.
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    Ludovico wrote:
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Arthur like king Arthur. Might as well. I'm republican so don't really care, I found the way media cover the royal family here in the UK utterly sycophantic.

    I'm kind of in the middle on this. I don't really care one way or another about having a royal family. It makes no impact on my life.

    The BBC's coverage has been quite intolerable. I read an article yesterday about the luxurious private suite Kate was in, equipped with satellite television, Wi-Fi and a fridge. Nice for the UK taxpayers to know that whilst everyone else has to suffer with the NHS. Our media coverage in this country seems to have lowered itself to tabloid level.

    The BBC yesterday said the Duchess was in very good hands. I thought: "Geez, really? Who would have thought?" The amount of clichés they shoveled at the audience, it was insulting.

    The problem stems from 24 hour news coverage. We're saturated with it. There's so much filler because everyone's fighting each other for ratings.

    Every facet of a story is covered irrespective of whether it's factually relevant or even interesting. It's like wringing a sponge dry to get every last drop of water out of it

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,809
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Arthur like king Arthur. Might as well. I'm republican so don't really care, I found the way media cover the royal family here in the UK utterly sycophantic.

    I'm kind of in the middle on this. I don't really care one way or another about having a royal family. It makes no impact on my life.

    The BBC's coverage has been quite intolerable. I read an article yesterday about the luxurious private suite Kate was in, equipped with satellite television, Wi-Fi and a fridge. Nice for the UK taxpayers to know that whilst everyone else has to suffer with the NHS. Our media coverage in this country seems to have lowered itself to tabloid level.

    The BBC yesterday said the Duchess was in very good hands. I thought: "Geez, really? Who would have thought?" The amount of clichés they shoveled at the audience, it was insulting.

    The problem stems from 24 hour news coverage. We're saturated with it. There's so much filler because everyone's fighting each other for ratings.

    Every facet of a story is covered irrespective of whether it's factually relevant or even interesting. It's like wringing a sponge dry to get every last drop of water out of it

    Indeed. I was saying just this tonight on seeing them waiting for the baby to emerge. I gave up on the coverage as a bad job. Rolling news has its limits. Sky and the BBC are just as bad as each other, too.
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    Dragonpol wrote:
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Arthur like king Arthur. Might as well. I'm republican so don't really care, I found the way media cover the royal family here in the UK utterly sycophantic.

    I'm kind of in the middle on this. I don't really care one way or another about having a royal family. It makes no impact on my life.

    The BBC's coverage has been quite intolerable. I read an article yesterday about the luxurious private suite Kate was in, equipped with satellite television, Wi-Fi and a fridge. Nice for the UK taxpayers to know that whilst everyone else has to suffer with the NHS. Our media coverage in this country seems to have lowered itself to tabloid level.

    The BBC yesterday said the Duchess was in very good hands. I thought: "Geez, really? Who would have thought?" The amount of clichés they shoveled at the audience, it was insulting.

    The problem stems from 24 hour news coverage. We're saturated with it. There's so much filler because everyone's fighting each other for ratings.

    Every facet of a story is covered irrespective of whether it's factually relevant or even interesting. It's like wringing a sponge dry to get every last drop of water out of it

    Indeed. I was saying just this tonight on seeing them waiting for the baby to emerge. I gave up on the coverage as a bad job. Rolling news has its limits. Sky and the BBC are just as bad as each other, too.

    It's not just me who thinks the news has really dumbed down then.

    I put a post on my Facebook page yesterday

    'BREAKING NEWS: Woman on benefits gives birth. Daily Mail readers aghast'

    You wouldn't believe the stick I got for it

    ;)
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,809
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Arthur like king Arthur. Might as well. I'm republican so don't really care, I found the way media cover the royal family here in the UK utterly sycophantic.

    I'm kind of in the middle on this. I don't really care one way or another about having a royal family. It makes no impact on my life.

    The BBC's coverage has been quite intolerable. I read an article yesterday about the luxurious private suite Kate was in, equipped with satellite television, Wi-Fi and a fridge. Nice for the UK taxpayers to know that whilst everyone else has to suffer with the NHS. Our media coverage in this country seems to have lowered itself to tabloid level.

    The BBC yesterday said the Duchess was in very good hands. I thought: "Geez, really? Who would have thought?" The amount of clichés they shoveled at the audience, it was insulting.

    The problem stems from 24 hour news coverage. We're saturated with it. There's so much filler because everyone's fighting each other for ratings.

    Every facet of a story is covered irrespective of whether it's factually relevant or even interesting. It's like wringing a sponge dry to get every last drop of water out of it

    Indeed. I was saying just this tonight on seeing them waiting for the baby to emerge. I gave up on the coverage as a bad job. Rolling news has its limits. Sky and the BBC are just as bad as each other, too.

    It's not just me who thinks the news has really dumbed down then.

    I put a post on my Facebook page yesterday

    'BREAKING NEWS: Woman on benefits gives birth. Daily Mail readers aghast'

    You wouldn't believe the stick I got for it

    ;)

    My brother was telling me the satirical magazine Private Eye are running with something similar in their new edition this week.
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    Dragonpol wrote:
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Arthur like king Arthur. Might as well. I'm republican so don't really care, I found the way media cover the royal family here in the UK utterly sycophantic.

    I'm kind of in the middle on this. I don't really care one way or another about having a royal family. It makes no impact on my life.

    The BBC's coverage has been quite intolerable. I read an article yesterday about the luxurious private suite Kate was in, equipped with satellite television, Wi-Fi and a fridge. Nice for the UK taxpayers to know that whilst everyone else has to suffer with the NHS. Our media coverage in this country seems to have lowered itself to tabloid level.

    The BBC yesterday said the Duchess was in very good hands. I thought: "Geez, really? Who would have thought?" The amount of clichés they shoveled at the audience, it was insulting.

    The problem stems from 24 hour news coverage. We're saturated with it. There's so much filler because everyone's fighting each other for ratings.

    Every facet of a story is covered irrespective of whether it's factually relevant or even interesting. It's like wringing a sponge dry to get every last drop of water out of it

    Indeed. I was saying just this tonight on seeing them waiting for the baby to emerge. I gave up on the coverage as a bad job. Rolling news has its limits. Sky and the BBC are just as bad as each other, too.

    It's not just me who thinks the news has really dumbed down then.

    I put a post on my Facebook page yesterday

    'BREAKING NEWS: Woman on benefits gives birth. Daily Mail readers aghast'

    You wouldn't believe the stick I got for it

    ;)

    My brother was telling me the satirical magazine Private Eye are running with something similar in their new edition this week.

    Should I be suing them for plagiarism?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,809
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Arthur like king Arthur. Might as well. I'm republican so don't really care, I found the way media cover the royal family here in the UK utterly sycophantic.

    I'm kind of in the middle on this. I don't really care one way or another about having a royal family. It makes no impact on my life.

    The BBC's coverage has been quite intolerable. I read an article yesterday about the luxurious private suite Kate was in, equipped with satellite television, Wi-Fi and a fridge. Nice for the UK taxpayers to know that whilst everyone else has to suffer with the NHS. Our media coverage in this country seems to have lowered itself to tabloid level.

    The BBC yesterday said the Duchess was in very good hands. I thought: "Geez, really? Who would have thought?" The amount of clichés they shoveled at the audience, it was insulting.

    The problem stems from 24 hour news coverage. We're saturated with it. There's so much filler because everyone's fighting each other for ratings.

    Every facet of a story is covered irrespective of whether it's factually relevant or even interesting. It's like wringing a sponge dry to get every last drop of water out of it

    Indeed. I was saying just this tonight on seeing them waiting for the baby to emerge. I gave up on the coverage as a bad job. Rolling news has its limits. Sky and the BBC are just as bad as each other, too.

    It's not just me who thinks the news has really dumbed down then.

    I put a post on my Facebook page yesterday

    'BREAKING NEWS: Woman on benefits gives birth. Daily Mail readers aghast'

    You wouldn't believe the stick I got for it

    ;)

    My brother was telling me the satirical magazine Private Eye are running with something similar in their new edition this week.

    Should I be suing them for plagiarism?

    Probably, but they get enough people suing them for libel already, I'd imagine!
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Peregrine James Carruthers Windsor.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,809
    doubleoego wrote:
    Peregrine James Carruthers Windsor.

    Sounds about right, by way of Bulldog Drummond.
  • PerdoggPerdogg
    Posts: 686
    How about Joffrey?
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    I enjoy reading about the royal family, but I do not live in England and am not saturated with it.

    It will probably be a combination of past family names. (I am rather surprised this thread is still ongoing ...)

    I am hoping for something like: James Albert Michael Charles
    So that all incorporates a past king, well really two as Albert was the queen's father's actual birth name, not George, and both grandfather's names.

    I would like James as the first name - I think it's a great name, sounds good, and of course has a slight Bond influence in it that I like. ;)
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    4EverBonded wrote:
    I enjoy reading about the royal family, but I do not live in England and am not saturated with it.

    It will probably be a combination of past family names. (I am rather surprised this thread is still ongoing ...)

    I am hoping for something like: James Albert Michael Charles
    So that all incorporates a past king, well really two as Albert was the queen's father's actual birth name, not George, and both grandfather's names.

    I would like James as the first name - I think it's a great name, sounds good, and of course has a slight Bond influence in it that I like. ;)

    Prince Albert has a different meaning in England ;-)

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Well, I didn't really want it as a first name. I think the queen would appreciate it being there somewhere in the 3 or 4 names this baby will probably get.
  • GerardGerard
    Posts: 5,811
    I like Arthur as well. At least, we know he will not be called John.

    And congrats to the parents.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,979
    Skyfall.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Actually does anyone else think 'Of Persia' would be a real cool name?

    I second this, until he becomes king, because King Of Persia doesn't sound as cool as Prince Of Persia.
  • AgentCalibosAgentCalibos Banned
    Posts: 46
    Sir Crapsalot
  • CraterGunsCraterGuns
    Posts: 615
    What Should Be The New Royal Baby's Name?
    Napoleon.
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    Agent007391 wrote:
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Actually does anyone else think 'Of Persia' would be a real cool name?

    I second this, until he becomes king, because King Of Persia doesn't sound as cool as Prince Of Persia.

    By the time he takes the throne, he will be using his middle name.

    Kong
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    I am a proud Brit and I like the Royals. But? The amount of coverage the media and press have given it really unbelievable when you think of what else is going on in the world. I think if they want to capitalise on the whole Britishness of things? Go for King Arthur for the distant future! <:-P
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited July 2013 Posts: 4,444
    Atleast 2 other people are happy with the name

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT7GhDYHCm6yMpcDTsdynNySzz8eBTYL44o0fMoNgpVoks3VCsj8Qimages?q=tbn:ANd9GcQX7lzHkAAdRRuMJromzl_ouag59gJOCtKtfSUyZxdxh4LujDOD-g

Sign In or Register to comment.