Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Why does it always take them so long to name the royal baby?

It took a week for them to announce Prince William's name after he was born, and two weeks to announce Princess Beatrice's, so I'm not holding my breath this new baby's will be announced today or tomorrow.

Haven't William and Kate talked about the baby's possible names before he was born? Haven't they already talked it over with the queen? or did they wait until now to talk about it for the first time. And does the queen have to mull it over in her head for a few days before she decides if she really likes it? "George... George... do I really like the name George? And does this baby really look like a George?"

by Anonymousreply 9307/29/2013

The Queen has to sign off on it first.

by Anonymousreply 107/23/2013

Yes, r1; but why does that take so long? Haven't they spoken to her about a possible name previously?

by Anonymousreply 207/23/2013

The list of snooze-worthy names is enormous.

by Anonymousreply 307/23/2013

It has to be researched and a bunch of other stuff.

by Anonymousreply 407/23/2013

All you know is how long it takes to announce the name. It may have been decided weeks ago.

by Anonymousreply 507/23/2013

I'm still getting no answers to my question of [italic]why[/italic] it takes so long.

by Anonymousreply 607/23/2013

R6, Separating the day of birth from the time of announcement of the official name maximizes continuous pap coverage, and money to many.

by Anonymousreply 707/23/2013

Taking so long to announce the name really is attention-whorage of the first order. And I say that as a Brit.

by Anonymousreply 807/23/2013

It's probably royal tradition.

by Anonymousreply 907/23/2013







by Anonymousreply 1007/23/2013

the kid is going to be called

charles or phillip so who cares

doubt he is going to be named brayden or zyraiden or qeeeeeeeeefshawn

by Anonymousreply 1107/23/2013

Spelling has always been a challenge for the royal family, and they want to ensure that they do things right.

by Anonymousreply 1207/23/2013

Because it's a colossal event for many; and every single stage in the process will be (sorry) milked for maximum suspense value and impact. The Royals' stock is very high at present, and the new-born adds a priceless boost.

Also: late July and August is 'the silly season' for the press, when politicians vacate and hard news is thin. So, The Royals' milking will find acres of newsprint. No awkward competition with, say, The Olympics, or a Diamond Jubilee. Handy timing, that.

by Anonymousreply 1307/23/2013

It will be named Keith.

by Anonymousreply 1407/23/2013

They may want to assess the child's personality before they decide on a name. Does he behave like a Patrick? An Alexander? A Gordon? These things can take time.

by Anonymousreply 1507/23/2013

Prince Henry is called Harry.

Prince Lawrence will be called Larry.

by Anonymousreply 1607/23/2013

It's either going to be called Charles, Phillip, George, Albert, James, Edward or some other boring, stodgy family name so who cares?

There's not a lot of variety when it comes to royal British male names. They've been recycling the same 6 for the past 400 years.

by Anonymousreply 1707/23/2013

[quote]I'm still getting no answers to my question of why it takes so long.

A better question is, Why the fuck do you care what they call it or when they announce it?

by Anonymousreply 1807/23/2013

So what does this mean for Harry. Is he still a Prince? Does he lose his title now?

by Anonymousreply 1907/23/2013

No, Harry stays prince, but is now fourth in line to the throne.

by Anonymousreply 2007/23/2013

Interestingly I read QEII has held up royal baby namings previously because she disapproved of the first name choice. I guess they don't always run it by her before the birth so there have been holdups.

She wouldn't allow Fergie to names her 2nd daughter Annabel, so she sent her back to the drawing board to come up with Eugenie instead. It was several days before the name was made public. She also supposedly wouldnt allow Sophie and Edward to name their son Theo, even though it was an old family name in Sophie's fam. They settled for making it a middle name and called him James instead.

Since this new baby is the heir I would bet QEII has to approve all of the names.

by Anonymousreply 2107/23/2013

R20 Harry is gay and he may wind up in a marriage of convenience like his non-biological father Charles who is also gay.

by Anonymousreply 2207/23/2013

I think it's a holdover from the days when no one knew if a baby would survive the first week or two.

by Anonymousreply 2307/23/2013

R22, DL rumors/fantasies or the truth?

by Anonymousreply 2407/23/2013

OP, you have to understand: Doing nothing all day is absolutely daunting. Kate needs to spend the next several months resting before she spends her energy thinking of a name for her little crotchfruit!

by Anonymousreply 2507/23/2013

The baby's name should be "Stephen;" it means crown, which is very appropriate given he'll be crowned king.

by Anonymousreply 2607/23/2013

So if what R22 says is right, that QEII has to aprove the baby name, why didn't they have the name picked out and aproved beforehand? Or have a list of pre-aproved baby names?

by Anonymousreply 2707/23/2013

I'm surprised by how many poor white trash Americans adore the "royals" (i.e. inbred welfare clan in a castle).

These schlubs really adore the rich!

Several of my Facebook pals posted parody links and made jokes about the baby, and a bunch of bucktoothed Florida residents attacked them in mini-flame wars.

by Anonymousreply 2807/23/2013

I think Will and Kate know what's expected in the name department and have a short list of acceptable male names. Not sure why they wouldn't run it by her first, if in fact her ok is needed.

I think if QEII sees something she doesn't like she'll just tell them to use another one.

I'm thinking John, James, George, Philip or even Arthur or Michael now.

by Anonymousreply 2907/23/2013

R26 it won't be Stephen, there was already a king of that name and things didn't go too smoothly with him, what with the civil war and all.

Names are usually checked to see if they have any unfortunate connotations.

R22 lives in a fantasy world. There is FAR too much evidence of Harry being a pussy hound for him to be gay, same with his father. I don't like the royals (mainly because it's ridiculous in this day and age) but lets not make up fairy tales. FWIW I believe the rumours about Edward.

by Anonymousreply 3007/23/2013

They wanted to name him Lebron, but the queen prefers Kobe.

by Anonymousreply 3107/23/2013

Won't there be a paternity test first to ensure that Wills is in fact the father and that Katie hasn't been fucking Charles or Boris Johnson on the sly?

by Anonymousreply 3207/23/2013

There really ought to be a rule that whoever goes to the trouble of pushing it out gets to name it. I vote Keith or Lebron, to help liven up all those tedious conferences and press announcements for years to come

by Anonymousreply 3307/23/2013

[quote]She wouldn't allow Fergie to names her 2nd daughter Annabel, so she sent her back to the drawing board to come up with Eugenie instead.

It was Beatrice whom Fergie and Andrew wanted to name Annabel, not Eugenie.

by Anonymousreply 3407/23/2013

Prince Dylan Marley Lennon it is.

by Anonymousreply 3507/23/2013

I wonder why the Queen found fault with the name Annabel.

by Anonymousreply 3607/23/2013

The real question is why does anyone give a fuck about these inbred, tax-wasting, useless fools?

by Anonymousreply 3707/23/2013

It only costs each British citizen one measly pound per year to maintain the monarchy yet the touristic cash that they bring back into the country is many times more than that. it's a win/win situation for everyone.

by Anonymousreply 3807/23/2013

[quote]I wonder why the Queen found fault with the name Annabel.

There was no royal precedent for it (i.e. no other queens or princesses in England have ever had that name).

by Anonymousreply 3907/23/2013

You precedence queens are full of shit. Names have to start somewhere, so it's foolish to act like the royal family is bound to tradition in that respect. What's the precedence for Zara?! Or Savannah, Isla, Margarita, Samuel, Xan, Columbus, and many of the other unique names found in the British line of succession?

by Anonymousreply 4007/23/2013

[quote]I wonder why the Queen found fault with the name Annabel.

Someone on another thread said she didn't want a royal princess with a name reminding her of Jimmy Goldsmith's longtime mistress who had a nightclub named after her.

r40 those kids were way out of the line of succession. She doesn't approve her cousins' or niece-nephew's kids names, just those with royal titles who are far up in the line.

by Anonymousreply 4107/23/2013

[quote]What's the precedence for Zara?! Or Savannah, Isla, Margarita, Samuel, Xan, Columbus, and many of the other unique names found in the British line of succession?

Those are not the name of royals.

You only have to get the queen's permission if your child is going to be an HRH, in which case she seems to request a royal precedent.

by Anonymousreply 4207/23/2013

Serverus Dr Who Biggles Aslan Ftang-Ftang Olé Biscuitbarrel

by Anonymousreply 4307/23/2013

I guess its a form of Royal quality control.

I bet it mostly stops when Charles becomes King. Or William - can't see him sitting around dictating what Harry's kids or grandkids are named.

That being said I think the direct heir should have a traditional royal name.

by Anonymousreply 4407/23/2013

[quote]What's the precedence for Zara?! Or Savannah, Isla, Margarita, Samuel, Xan, Columbus, and many of the other unique names found in the British line of succession?

None of those people are in the core line of succession. Beatrice is the eldest daughter of the second eldest son of the Monarch. Andrew also just happens to be Elizabeth's favorite son so she probably paid special attention to the naming of his children.

by Anonymousreply 4507/23/2013

James (because it is the nicest of the lot of Royal names for boys) Henry (after Will's brother and best friend) Michael (after Kate's father) Spencer (after Diana) will be:

James Henry Michael Spencer!

by Anonymousreply 4607/23/2013

One must wait for the tail to wither and drop off to reveal the true name, as is tradition.

by Anonymousreply 4707/23/2013

It is nice to have this go on a long while. It's good to have something positive any unifying in the news. We can all agree on our fondness for the royal family. I like to think than no matter what our background there's a bit of England in all of us.

It is comical, however to imagine the royal baby being named Shaniqua, LaTisha or Trayvon. Wouldn't that be a scandal! Only in America, though. Only in America.

by Anonymousreply 4807/23/2013

My money is on Alfred.

by Anonymousreply 4907/23/2013

I think it would be nice is Spencer was in there somewhere. And if it had been a girl ("Bring me a knitting needle!" screamed the Queen), Diana.

by Anonymousreply 5007/23/2013

Enough with these insufferable people already.

by Anonymousreply 5107/23/2013

THank you, R22. I first heard those rumors from a Canadian friend who studied at a theater school a couple of years in London - late 70's. In 1979? early 80's? there was some to-do where Prince Charles came to NYC; my friend was living there by then, and said he had heard from any number of people, that it was common knowledge that Charles was gay (or at least bi.)

Don't know if it's true; sure would help explain Camilla, heh-heh.

(Yes, I'm old)

by Anonymousreply 5207/23/2013

R52 That can't be true. I don't think there's even the slightest possibility. I have read rumors like that about Prince Edward. I hope it's not disrespectful to post that here.

by Anonymousreply 5307/23/2013

No gay man would ever want to be Camilla's tampon.

Or anyone's tampon, really, but especially Camilla's.

by Anonymousreply 5407/23/2013

Why does Egbert get no love these days?

by Anonymousreply 5507/23/2013

I'd love to live in R48's world, where this news is unifying and we all love these lazy folks who have had several months to come up with names. I guess they are the original drama queens over there in Merry Olde England.

I do like the image of a drunken Lillibet ranting, "Do you think I can rule the Commonwealth and still have the time to come up with names for your little slut puppy?"

by Anonymousreply 5607/23/2013

There is far more substance to the stories about Prince George, Duke of Kent (the Queen's uncle) than anything about Charles or Harry. I think R22 is more about wishful thinking than fact. Both Charles and Harry have fucked too many women (for some reason always blondes) for there to be any doubt.

by Anonymousreply 5707/23/2013

It's not inconceivable that they may be hanging out with the baby to see which name is suitable. Some parents do that.

It's not going to be James. One was gay & the other was overthrown.

by Anonymousreply 5807/23/2013

Is it really that big of a deal, OP? Can't you just wait?

by Anonymousreply 5907/23/2013

Well R56 that was a bit unbecoming. For centuries the Commonwealth untied people from the most God forsaken pits of the dark continent to the ooga-booga'ing-est islands of the South Pacific, from the crowded slums of India to the exotic Orient and from the sapphire waters of the Caribbean right to the Imperial gates of Buckingham Palace. The sun never set on the British Empire and even the illiterate and the uncultured of what would one day be the "third world" would unite with the English, the Canadians, even the early Americans in respect and admiration of the royal family.

It is nice to see remnants of that common culture still in existence. We needn't be completely cynical. We needn't always focus on divisive issues. Today ABCNews broke into regularly scheduled programming with a bulletin about the royal baby's first public appearance, the last time that happened it had to do with the fussing in Sanford, FL.

Which is better? Maybe this country needs a bit more class?

by Anonymousreply 6007/23/2013

They don't want to waste their first choice of name if he doesn't survive the week.

by Anonymousreply 6107/23/2013

Charles is bisexual - he's best friends with Camilla, who's been his main squeeze since the 70s. But, he's had affairs with at least one staff member of his household.

Camilla is fine with it. Just like she was fine with his other mistresses, fine with his marriage to Diana, fathering the children, etc.

by Anonymousreply 6207/23/2013

Sorry - one male staff member of the his household -- Michael Fawcett, I believe.

by Anonymousreply 6307/23/2013

Ah, R60, the colonial world, where the white man dominated the "darkies," was a lovely world. One that no longer exists - thankfully. Some nations are still trying to recover from their colonial oppressors, who stole all their natural goods and made money off of "the natives." It's a nice world - for those who are white and descendent of the oppressors.

If you think they were there to bring culture, fine. Live in your fantasy world. The colonialists were there to make money and to enforce their idea of "culture" on those they conquered.

by Anonymousreply 6407/23/2013

My guues.

James Charles Spencer Phillip George

by Anonymousreply 6507/23/2013

I'm the one who posted in the other thread about Annabel's. It's a very popular membership nightclub in London for the wealthy and famous. It has (or at least had) a strict dress code. There's a story about a Beatle not being admitted because he wasn't wearing a dinner jacket. This is where Diana and Sarah went dressed undercover. Other royals have frequented it, too.

I misspoke about ownership It was owned by Mark Birley who was married to Annabel at the time. She carried out a very well-known affair with his best friend, Jimmy Goldsmith. I believe their first child was born before Annabel and Birley were divorced. They eventually married after she and Birley were divorded. When Diana's marriage to Charles began to unravel, she spent numerous weekends at Annabel Goldsmith's country house outside of London. Vanity Fair has carried stories about Birley, Annabel and Goldsmith.

There's a taint of scandal associated with the name.

by Anonymousreply 6607/23/2013

I'm now thinking they might go with Philip, after William's grandfather. Traditional yet unused for a monarch (Philip I is now viewed as a consort of Queen Mary).

If not maybe Alexander or Edmund.

by Anonymousreply 6707/23/2013

I have a question for DL royal experts: is this new baby the Earl of Strathearn automatically, since this is one of his father's courtesy titles? The next one after Duke of Cambridge.

Or is this practice only used by non-royal UK nobility. Since this little boy is a Prince of the UK he doesn't automatically get a courtesy title (unless granted one). ??

by Anonymousreply 6807/23/2013

Wouldn't Baby Boy Windsor be Prince ______ of Cambridge?

by Anonymousreply 6907/23/2013

Also, what is the army of nannies currently changing the Royal Nappy calling him? "Hey, you?"

by Anonymousreply 7007/23/2013

Yes he would VOTN, but I'm wondering if he also has the earldom at birth. It's his father's 2nd courtesy title.

In non-royal british nobility, the eldest son automatically his father's 2nd title at birth. For example, QEII's nephew David Linley automatically became Viscount Linley at birth as this was the next title of his father, the Earl of Snowden. Or Edward's son automatically becoming Viscount Severn at birth.

This tradition probably doesn't apply to royal princes though. Perhaps something has to be created or granted.

by Anonymousreply 7107/23/2013

He's technically THE Prince xxxx of Cambridge

by Anonymousreply 7207/23/2013

Considering Phillip is on his last legs they may go with that I guess. But King Phil? Ugh. When they ring and ask for my opinion i will tell them James and Alexander are much nicer names.

by Anonymousreply 7307/23/2013

Would they name him Phillip if there could conceivably be two Phillips on the throne at the same time (if Spain's reigns long and Charles and William don't).

by Anonymousreply 7407/23/2013

And one was the father of Harry, r58!

by Anonymousreply 7507/23/2013

As I wrote in the other thread, Zenouska Mowatt (born 1990) is 49th in the line of succession according to Wikipedia. That's a name that could bridge so many divides. Imagine Queen Zenouska.

by Anonymousreply 7607/23/2013

Doesn't the name have to be one of a previous monarch (not consort)? That would rule out Phillip. Kate is dull as dishwater but William obviously has a stubborn independant streak so he may want a name that pays tribute to his mother's family.

by Anonymousreply 7707/24/2013

Why does it have to be a previous monarch? That line of names had to start somewhere.

by Anonymousreply 7807/24/2013

I imagine it has to do with tradition and gravitas. The new prince should count his lucky stars he's not heir to the Danish throne. Male heirs in Denmark are either called Christian or Frederick - nothing else.

by Anonymousreply 7907/24/2013


by Anonymousreply 8007/24/2013

He shall be named after his father's uncle.

So he will be Prince Dockside Doris.

by Anonymousreply 8107/24/2013

Why does one care so much. U old queens wont be alive when he ascends the thrown.

by Anonymousreply 8207/24/2013

I don't think the name *has* to be that of a previous monarch - Victoria wasn't and neither was Albert (the first name of Edward VII).

However, tried and tested regal names do seem to have been QEII's preference both in terms of naming her own children, and those she has approved for her grandchildren. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't a rule she put in place to mitigate the poor taste of her offspring and their spouses.

Also, with so much media coverage, and future monarchs so well-known to the press and public for decades before accession, it really makes no sense to put the child in a position where it would *have* to choose a regnal name because few people would ever use it.

I personally think Charles (the name of both grandpa and great-uncle), Phillip and Henry likely, with James and Michael as possible middle names.

by Anonymousreply 8307/24/2013

R82, "thrown"?


by Anonymousreply 8407/24/2013

Windsor Spencer

by Anonymousreply 8507/24/2013

Daishiki Tupac

by Anonymousreply 8607/24/2013

They have to consult with Flora, Fauna and Merryweather

by Anonymousreply 8707/24/2013

George Alexander Louis

by Anonymousreply 8807/24/2013

Y'all were way off

by Anonymousreply 8907/24/2013

[quote]I don't think the name *has* to be that of a previous monarch - Victoria

Not only where there no previous Victorias, but the name wasn't even know in English until Vic came along.

by Anonymousreply 9007/24/2013

Why she still got that baby bump y'all?

by Anonymousreply 9107/29/2013

when my kids were born -we had several ideas about names but wanted to meet him/her first to make a final decision.

by Anonymousreply 9207/29/2013

who gives a fuck? This is not news and has no impact on the world.

by Anonymousreply 9307/29/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!