General Chat

Rollo King George chose his name out of respect for father King George V. Actually Prince Charles could also decide to be King George.


PS I hope your little cat is feeling better.
:-S :-S

I wasn't really referring to the name part of the comment I copied and pasted, but the other part.

I am a little disappointed with the names chosen, I thought they might have come up with something a bit different albeit in line with royal names. I do like Alexander tho.

There will be lots of little boys called George in the next few months I expect and girls called Georgina??


Lizx

Beat me to it RR - will delete my posting :-)

Drat it's

George Alexander Louis

I actually quite agree that they need to know the little chap before naming him. I have always wanted to do that with any animal I have had ..apart from Minx who is called anything but ... I also think they have him named but just need to sort the order of names out, and just maybe they would like to spend some time with their son before the limelight gets too much.

It would amuse me if they go for non king names ..but not the new names like Wayne an stuff but Robert or or or I get lost there.

Off to my hidey hole of probate stuff :-(

I think they should call him Tyler!!!!!!!!!............pmsl


they should call him what they want

I think he should be called FRED.

Then he could be a FREDERICK the GREAT in the future.!!!

Don't call him Richard as in this modern day era he would probably

be called KING DICK. !!!!

F.

With royals the one thing you can be sure of is that the names of any who were completely over the top or losers will not get another go. Also once an enemy always an enemy. Names popular on TV and associated with Merlin or Warhammer won't get much of a go either nor will anything else pre 1066.

Thus Harold ( loser twice over, the current lot started out as Norman-French ), Henry ( the comedians would have a fine time with 'enery the ninth I am ), Richard ( enemy, loser civil wars are the most bitter ) James ( deposed ) are non starters. Charles II was a winner from a royalist perspective. George VI was king as George and not Albert 'cos he was not a man of great inner confidence and he wanted a winning name.

George William Philip Francis Mountbattern-Windsor

is my guess.

It is possible that William will be one of the few Kings of England never to have enjoyed the titles and income of being Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Lord of the Isles. No doubt he is hoping the bouncy young hand waver will shell out when the time comes.

I expect when George the VI was born they were not expecting him to become king so didn't really give him a Royal name. Would imagine Edward VII was only given his fathers name as it was the norm back then?

Not sure I'm keen on Prince/King Dick :-D

I like Albert, Bertie sounds young too <3

The first name of George V1 was Albert, known to the family as Bertie. It was only when he was declared King that he was called George. Could have been one of his other given names of course.

John? Can't see that one somehow
James
Stephen
Alfred
Harold

I like Richard, hope they choose that :-D Lancastrians and Yorkists still come from the same root.

Whatever name he gets there are some that really are impossible.

Wayne for instance and Richard ...

The current line are descendants of Henry VII and the House of Lancaster. You may recall that Henry VII was closely involved with the death of the unfortunate Richard III, a name which has never figured with royalty since.

The reason it will take a while is that they are trying to think of an alternative to George and it is next to impossible. Let's see, Hanoverian male sovereigns:

George 1, II, III, IV, V, VI
William IV
Edward VII, VIII ( dud )

Which would you lay your money on ?

It may also be a bit tricky adding in something for the Middleton side but Francis has the right sort of ring.

It only dawned on me yesterday that our son was at least 4 days old perhaps 5 when he was named.

The reason - we had decided we were having another girl and had not given a thought to naming a boy!!

It only dawned on me yesterday that our son was at least 4 days old perhaps 5 when he was named.

The reason - we had decided we were having another girl and had not given a thought to naming a boy!!

I think "Richard" would be a good name,Its been used before,so why not now? :-D

I hadn't realised that there had been a question asked that gave rise to that answer of William's and it explains things now, altho the tense is wrong..

I know babies heads are all different after birth, but usually the difference looks less marked after 24 hours.

He is still a lovely baby and I loved the fact that he was waving his fingers about. I wonder if they heard those strong lungs much last night. Hope they all got some sleep as I am sure they will be 'hands on' parents and not the sort to hand baby over to a Nanny..

Lizx

The Queen at Kensington Palace this morning to visit her new g,grandson.

I wonder if the Duke and Duchess have chosen the names and if approved by Her Majesty they may make an announcement today ;-)

Sharron, I have 'Arthur' down on Lynda's sweepstake thread, I liked the thought that in time to come there would be another 'King Arthur' :-D

Babies' heads are all sorts of shapes even after a normal birth, that's why the cranial plates are free to move.

You cannot possibly speculate and personally I found Liz's remark very disturbing.

William could have meant absolutely anything with his comment.