It’s a boy! Royal baby has arrived. God Save the Queen

Another parasite for the Brit public to support.

Okay they should stop now. More than 3 is not fashionable.

Any ideas on name?

R1 doesn't get where the monarchy's money comes from. It's their own properties

🎉 Lucky Bastard......

R4 which they own from being monarchs

Many ideas for R3

Official from Kensington Palace:

Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge was safely delivered of a son at 1101hrs.

The baby weighs 8lbs 7oz.

The Duke of Cambridge was present for the birth.

Her Royal Highness and her child are both doing well.

GMA must have a DataLounger on it's staff.

The crawl across the screen reports that the new baby is fifth in line to the "THROWN."

R6 The family has owned those lands for hundreds of years. No current way under the British constitution to strip them of it. Same for descendants of dukes, earls, etc.

Instead, the government just takes the most of the income and allows them a small portion of it for their personal use. Tourism generated by the family also offsets the even that amount on it's own.

[quote]GMA must have a DataLounger on it's staff

R9 should be the last one criticising anyone's spelling. I T S (no apostrophe, twit!)

Huzza! The English now have their Saviour!

yay.....may he be blessed with homo ness!!!

long live the queens in the kingdom...

Damn and blast. I meant to add this link.

Hopefully not Philip for the name.

R11 And we spell it:

CRITICIZING ( with a Z, twat !)

Darn, I was hoping to drag this out another month so I wouldn’t have to go to the wedding.

r10 oh really? Start taxing those fuckers on their...I mean, the "Queen's property" and see how long things remain in their hands. This is how the government stripped most of their peers of land and wealth to fund to pay off war debts and setup social services.

It's a shame that this boy will be below his sister in the pecking order.

R19 Why?

Pippa is pregnant as well.

Current bookies odds on the name:

Arthur 5/1

Albert on 9/1

Jack also lies at 9/1

James 12/1

We just did his Vedic chart and it is in line with the birth circumsicias.

Lord of first in the first, with Rahu yet!.......jupiter/sun oppositia, etc/

What does any of that mean?

God Save the Queen!

So Kate shit out another kid.

Whoop de do.

R18 It's not in the country's interest. As I've said they already keep the lion's share of income from the properties and the royal family makes up the rest with tourism. It is a net financial benefit to the country to have them

Sparkle is banging on the door of the maternity ward with a photographer right now.

Right, R4. It's all earned. They have been getting tax dollars forever and only within the last 25 years did they finally start paying income tax

It means I block yet another of Erna's incarnations, R24.

Show us the receipts r27. There is nothing to support your fantasy. The tourists still flock to Versailles without a monarch in residence. Royal bootlickers always trot out this phoney “they pay for themselves” schtick but never have anything to back it up.

[quote] The baby weighs 8lbs 7oz

Big deal. I weigh more than that.

Lucky chap - he will soon have a new auntie, Princess Henry Markle-Windsor.

They actually don't receive any ta dollars R29. As said above. They take an income from property their family was never stripped of. And only a small percentage of that total income. The rest goes to the state

OP/R25 = The "Her Majesty" troll, the old queen who cums at the very mention of a British "royal". Notice the language it likes to use re: the "royal" family. Run along troll.

What a cute little leech!!!

[bold]IMPORTANT[/bold]

How is he related to Princess Michael, exactly?

The monarch gets substantial income from the original shares in the Bank of England since about 1693

We will know based on how much of a cunt he turns out to be r37

[quote]OP/[R25] = The "Her Majesty" troll, the old queen who cums at the very mention of a British "royal". Notice the language it likes to use re: the "royal" family. Run along troll.

oh, fuck off! you sour cunt.

Taxpayers DO pay about $100M/year through the sovereign grant.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

When people say that tax payers don't pay they mean the family directly, but the staff and transportation doesn't pay for itself. Presidents also cost money, but we don't pretend that the tax payers aren't footing the bill. If the royal family doesn't pay income tax on those lands (not all of it is profitable) then they are in effect hoarding money at the tax payer's expense. I am pro monarch and don't think the Queen should have to a pay a cent in taxes since she reigns over this kingdom, but you must please the peasants so she goes through the motions.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

The sovereign grant is funded entirely by the crown state with no additional money appropriated by parliament. It is true that state visits by foreign heads of state, which usually include meetings with the royal family are paid for out of the general fund for state visits which IS taxpayer funded.

They don't pay tax on the income, true. However the vast majority of the Crown Estate goes straight to parliament. The royal family is only allowed to keep 15% of it's revenue, despite nominally owning the whole thing. So you could argue they are paying 85% taxes, much more than any taxpayer. For another arrangement, the government would have to strip them of privately owned property, which it COULD if it wanted of course, just hasn't been done.

R48, I know that, but my response was to the claim that *no* taxpayer money goes to them. And as I said, they only started paying income tax like 25 years ago - that's not a long time when you consider how long they've been there,

crown estate*

Congrats to the UK.

R49 I wasn't directing that at just you but at anyone curious generally. You showed a nuanced understanding at R45

What will Meghan say and do now?

And today Prince Andrew is now 6th in line to the throne and is free to marry without the Queen's permission. Perhaps he and Fergie can join Harry and Meghan at St. George's.

R52, that's not me @R45

R54 is that true? Only the top 5 need permission? Never knew that.

R35, I'm R25, but I'm not the OP. You're a miserable, sour person with non-existent Trolldar chasing 'trolls' who don't exist. Go fuck yourself.

The Royal Marriages Act 1772 was an act of the Parliament of Great Britain, which prescribed the conditions under which members of the British Royal Family could contract a valid marriage, in order to guard against marriages that could diminish the status of the royal house. The right of veto vested in the sovereign by this act provoked severe adverse criticism at the time of its passage. It was repealed on 26 March 2015 as a result of the 2011 Perth Agreement. [bold]Its provisions were replaced by more limited restrictions that apply only to the first six people in the line of succession (currently Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, Prince Harry, and Prince Andrew).[/bold]

Who the hell cares? I am so sick of hearing about the British Royals in American media. Sick of hearing about this stupid wedding too.

Op what did the queen have to do with it?

[quote]We just did his Vedic chart and it is in line with the birth circumsicias.

I thought you *hated* circumsicias.

R59, there are plenty of other threads. Are you slow?

No, no, no, R61, Erna hates *non*circumsicias.

Most Americans know nothing of the British monarchy. Just the other day I had to explain to some Frau who Prince Philip is.

Meghan at hearing the news: Harry - what do you mean this drops you down a notch? Say what!

that baby is big. over 8 pounds. she must be loose as fuck now. yes i know it's supposed to shrink back and all that jazz but not all the way esp you've over 30 and now 3 kids. for sure it's gonna loose now. william is gonna start fucking some young maid now.

Kate and Meghan are rumored to get along quite well. Which would make sense as both are commoners.

But really Kate, 3 is enough, don't have another

But will he dial a phone with a pencil?

The Brits claim to be so smirkingly superior to Americans and yet they have this nonsense royal family they pay taxes to support. At least the dumb asshole we (not I) elected will be gone in a couple years but the British parasitical family seems to be there for a few more generations at least. Brit suckers.

Kate is competitive, she'll want at least one more than QEII

what the fuck else is she gonna do? might as well squeeze out as many as possible. now she's gonna try for another girl...just you watch.

R69, at least the person with the most votes becomes the Prime Minister. That job usually requires some proof of political know how.

My guess:

They will call him "Louis" after great-great-Uncle Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma.

[quote] Who the hell cares? I am so sick of hearing about the British Royals in American media. Sick of hearing about this stupid wedding too.

And yet, here you are, reading this thread instead of ignoring it, and posting on it too!

GO FIGURE!

R73 Nope. Already given to George, i.e., George Alexander Louis.

R6, As opposed to American bootstrap billionaires who never got a tax break?

The US right now has way more of a class system than the UK. It’s positively pre-revolutionary French in it’s grotesque disparity between the few haves and the masses of have nots that are one paycheck or disease away from poverty.

Income equality is a problem for sure but being hyperbolic doesn't help anything. The US middle class still owns more goods, and more expensive homes, then they did a generation ago. We are basically fine, we just have to rewrite the tax code to something reasonable instead of the nonsense republicans sneezed on the back of a napkin to give money to the wealthy. With a course correction, no lasting harm will have been done.

[quote]GMA must have a DataLounger on it's staff

This makes no sense. Clearly there IS NOT a DLer around or it wouldn't have happened. Or it would have been fixed immediately.

Exactly R79 There would immediately have been a chyron with a cunty correction of the first chyron

I predict the baby's name will be one of these three A's:

1) Arthur 2) Albert OR 3) Alfred

It would be nice for them to call him Philip but maybe it will be a middle name. Other middle names could be Michael and James Kate's father and brother repectively).

[quote]And today Prince Andrew is now 6th in line to the throne

Seventh in line.

Air miles Andy is now free to remarry his landwhale grifter ex-wife and beard.

Let's hope Prince George is gay. We need a gay king.

R84 England had an openly gay king once. It didn't end well... deposed by his wife.

Here's hoping it goes smoother this time!

r84 Whether or not he is gay has already been decided.

If he’s gay he will have to have an unfortunate accident and join his grandmother Diana in the hereafter.

I have to imagine a surrogate mother is fine if it shares his DNA. A dozen bastards have had the throne. And that is a step up really

[quote]3 is enough, don't have another

Alex I'll take "things only white people say" for $400.

R69, Americans lost the right to mock the monarchy when you started the habit of having presidential candidates who are close family members of previous presidents.

R90 I think that's fair for kids. Less so for husbands and wives, imo. The idea that you genetically inherit good leadership skills is what's absurd. I don't think the idea of two great leaders finding each other and falling in love all that weird.

But all you've done is replace one royal family with about half-a-dozen. That doesn't really seem much better, especially when - from what I hear - your children are taught the lie that anyone can grow up to be president. Another, related point - our hereditary royal family have very little real power. The lucky member of your "royal families" who becomes president gets a vast amount of it.

We don't have too many. Only the Bushes, Clintons, and Kennedys. There are only two Kennedys in significant office at the moment. Out of dozens of them. They used to be more of a problem but are receding quickly enough. The Clintons are probably done running for office, at least for a generation. Chelsea has shown zero interest in running for office. But there are always her kids I suppose. And the Bushes are also done. Their latest scion (Jeb!) was obliterated early in the contest. I don't see his son doing any better.

[quote][R69], at least the person with the most votes becomes the Prime Minister. That job usually requires some proof of political know how.

Not in the case of May

And at this point, I think Trump's more popular than her - that's how much she's hated.

I have always found the Royal Family an anachronistic embarrassment, beloved of old dears and silly queens , but it seems the public have a need to worship and they act as a lightening rod for that. They may not have power but they do have influence, Prince Charles interferes in matters well outside his waving duties and there are many eager to curry favour in order to be elevated to the lords and such. However, having seen what is going on in America, where you can have a president who behaves like a medieval king, can avoid answering awkward questions and has the ability to pardon those doing wrong in his name, all protected by the supposed sanctity of the job ( "You must respect the office of President!" ) it seems preferable to have a family of moochers waving pointlessly at the plebs from a balcony.

Some of the members of the public celebrating outside the hospital appear to be lunatics, particularly the couple holding the dolls wearing crowns.

r64, why should Americans know or care about the archaic, nonsensical British monarchy?

r72, up until the Bush, Jr. idiot who recently got elected, Americans did the same, and will go back to that. But the Brits will always have their royal leeches.

R95 The pardon power is indeed bizarre. The entire presidency was envisioned as a anti-thesis to monarchy in several ways. The founding fathers hated the British monarchy specifically more than others. Yet they chose to weirdly give the presidency this strange power clearly derived conceptually from monarchs right to award mercy.

*up until Bush, Jr. and the idiot who recently got elected...

William should be one of his names. Partly after his dad, but also since it's Shakespeare's birthday.

r64 seems not to know why the American Revolution occurred.

Thank you, basement-bound Captain Obvious. I appreciate the breaking news.

You're welcome, you stupid cunt.

Sizemeat verificata?

Sun conjunct Uranus in the 10th. Same as Donald Trump.

Princess Charlotte certainly isn't shy. Diana's genes are on full display here.

Just another non👶eventful event...........

I'd prefer to hear about another royal birth as opposed the birth of another Trumpette. 👿

They're already leaving the hospital, and they're making her walk out carrying the baby? Jesus, let her take a nap or something first.

And, Princess Charlotte just made history! She is the first female royal to not have her place in the line of succession changed by the arrival of a younger brother.

For all the bitching about how outmoded monarchies are, and blah blah blah...

I have to say William and Kate do things well. If this is Gen X royalty for the 21st Century, good on them.

One obvious (as opposed to closeted) sissy is enough in the family!

I hope they name the baby 'Elton John' or 'Roy'.

Please William and Kate do not have your child mutilated

R54, R56 Prince Andrew is now 7th in line, not 6th. The top 6 need permission to marry.

[quote]Kate and Meghan are rumored to get along quite well.

That's PR bullshit. Meg has already blown any chance of that by leaking negative on Kate to Sparkle's gossip column pals early on clearly showing that Sparkle is not to be trusted.

They should name the baby 'Neri Oxman'.

Thanks, R106, for that link.

Like his Dad when he was small, George clearly does not like the photographers.

Charlotte, however, is the bomb.

She'll have Sparkle curtsying. Always. Every time.

Don't know why but r9 made me laugh really hard.

I am SO OVER THIS already!

Here's the baby going home already.

Time to get to work on insurance policy #4! We need to be absolutely sure the village idiot will not have a bloody chance in hell.

Yay and stuff, but it's a safe bet that Markle and Harry's biracial babies will win in the cuteness category, yes?

R122 Depends on the hair. Most black white mixes are blessed there. A few get the worst of both worlds

William looks almost hot with the short hair, but the tinymeat is a deal killer.

William needs to shave his head, grow a beard, and hit the gym. He has potential to be a hot daddy.

Here's Kate after giving birth. She was dehydrated.

Out of all the traditions, I bet Kate hates the one where she parades her newborn out to the world hours after giving birth the most.

r127 probably but she knows the only way to keep being a lazy asshole is to be perpetually pregnant. That way she doesn't have to attend functions or all the other work that the royals are supposed to do.

Do vaginas snap back quickly or was her business still a little wonky when she had to go out and show off the baby?

r129 they have royal superglue for that. It's made from the braided public hairs of Nubian chieftan's wives. The royal obstetrician spackles some in and then clamps her legs shut to keep baby juice from falling out while it seals tighter than a mummy's tomb.

She's having more ! Broodmare

I wonder if they will name it Donald in honor of the great American President.

Kate looks healthy with weight on her. Watch, she’ll diet down to anerexia territory again.

Kate will be back to her skinny self in time to wear a glorious frock and fascinator at Nutmeg and Ginger's wedding.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Moments after r135 posted his coup de gras of Meghan Markle, he sighed contentedly, went to the refrigerator, took out the ham sandwich he had bought earlier from his favorite restaurant, and put it in the microwave. Humming softly, he blew out the pilot light on the stove, cranked the dials to full blast, and closed the doors to the room, sealing them with rolls of paper towels. As the room slowly filled with gas, he ate the delicious sandwich, half-smiling, knowing he could never repeat his ultimate insult of that Person, and closed his eyes for the last time forever.

The monarchy has no power at all and would not be all that difficult to get rid of but most Brits are too lazy to sign a petition demanding a republic. If i were queenie though I'd grab all the Crown Estate's income and stick two fingers up at the sour republicans.

R136 - your fucking commentaries about people you don't know are getting mighty tiresome. I don't need to see your shitty posts anymore. You are blocked.

I've a feeling Kate would like two girls just like her mother had so I think they will try again and end up having four children just like the Queen did. Kates Uncle also tweeted after Charlotte was born in 2015 that he thought they'd end up having a couple more because they love having kids so much. So I think they will stop at 4 just like Prince Frederik of Denmark.

The whole monarchy thing needs to die a quick death. Useless for the British population except for them. Filthy rich people with so-called class aren't necessarily better than anyone else.

The monarchy does have some power, R137. It doesn't use it much, but it does have some power - see link.

What is the point now? If it's all about divine right, well both Kate and Sparkle are commoners (and common) so their kids are half-nobody.

Sparkle seems to be deeply unpopular among the DM commenters who call themselves monarchists, so I think the bigger question is what effect will the marriage of Smug and Dim have on the republican movement?

And I think that the idea of the Queen, because she seems more the Queen than any other monarch in the world, has given Britain more soft power than it should have, so what happens to the UK's stubborn sense of empire if the monarchy is voted out? The pomp and circumstance is part of what's (insanely enough) keeping the UK relevant.

I hear way more hate for the monarchy from Americans, who don't even understand where their money comes from, than from any brit.

Americans are jealous. They have a very short history and a clown for a President.

[quote]They have a very short history and a clown for a President.

There's truth to that. We'd be so much happier if we had a stable authority figure, maybe Morgan Freeman or James Cromwell, handling all the ceremonial stuff and giving the occasional speech telling us everything was going to be OK. The President could be our chief civil servant instead of trying to straddle both jobs at once.

Just imagine if Trump were required to make regular visits to a monarch and bow before giving his weekly report.

I say it will be Philip Michael Albert Charles

And once again Kate made sure to wear a dress almost the same as the one Princess Diana wore when she took home her children from the hospital

I absolutely LOVE it

Here's what Kate wore when she took home Prince George

Meow!

Truth be told the grieving world needed this little ray of sunshine and new life after the mourning for Barbara Bush. The circle of life as it were.

are you serious r148?

Didn't realize we had Barbara Bush fans here on DL.

That baby is nearly 9 lbs. Kate never looked as if she put on much weight.

[quote]Kate and Meghan are rumored to get along quite well. Which would make sense as both are commoners. But really Kate, 3 is enough, don't have another

Why is it "enough"- what do you know about it?

They have tons of room and tons of money - why not go on?

I was amazed she was out on the street with the new baby showing him to the press, just a few hours after giving birth. Didn't feel comfortable to me. There was a mean breeze in London today.

I'm also amazed she can go home so soon. When I was a kiddie the new mother stayed in the hospital for at least a week.

& why drag the other kids to see him in the hospital if he's going to be taken home this evening?

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Ha! Another FU to the Rottweiler!!

She looks lovelely! Shouldn’t she still be in the hospital, though? It’s been only a few hours!!

[quote]William needs to shave his head, grow a beard, and hit the gym. He has potential to be a hot daddy.

Gurl, you forgot - bleach his teeth.

Then he can reallly look like an American gay, just to please you.

r138 is TRIGGERED! He doesn't like being called out on his unhinged hatred of some random person he doesn't even know.

Good thing Kate doesn't wellp her own kids or she'd be very tired

I'm expecting there to be a fourth one a few years later...or is it not fashionable to have more than three?

[quote]I hear way more hate for the monarchy from Americans, who don't even understand where their money comes from, than from any brit.

You're hanging out with the wrong Yanks. The ones in my area are obsessed with them. I hate them. I worked at an accounting firm where a frau was so obsessed with Will and Kate's nuptials that she attempted to find a dressmaker to design a knockoff of Kate's gown. She was twice as wide as Kate, so no.

It's pretty obvious what these two do on Sunday afternoons.

Kate wore a red dress very similar to Diana's when she left the hospital with Harry.

OMG.

How come when they think of names for the new Prince no one ever seems to mention Richard or John. Richard C'oeur d' Lion and his brother John were both kings of England. and then there was James. So it seems like they could come up with something a little more current than Arthur. Arthur reminds me of some doddering old man in a nursing home.

Albert Philip Charles William

all in order.

Prince Bertie of Cambridge

I believe the name Richard is considered bad luck.

So is John

The photo in r146 is the inspiration for Trump's hair style.

Richard = Richard II (gay, murdered), Richard III (alleged child killer); John = Magna Carta.

Well didn't charles get assassinated?

I say it'll be Philip Michael Albert Charles.

They'll name him Prince Dale Avicii Verne of Cambridge. It's the respectful thing to do.

R168, Charles I was executed, but Charles II was so great that people forgot about that.

Prince John was an epileptic who was hidden away by his family.

If Elizabeth did not think Charles was bad luck, who are we to quibble.

It will be Philip Michael Thomas R169

I’d like to see them go really old school with something like Constantine (king of Scotland) or Cnut, just for laughs.

How about Aethelwulf ? Then there was King Alfred who is generally acknowledged as the first king of a united England after Wessex, Mercia, and Umbria or Northumbria all fell and capitulated.

Prince Muscletits Manwhore of Cambridge

Devonte Qasid Adonay Mohammed of Cambridge in keeping with Modern Britain.

Considering the importance to the state, there should always be reporters present at the birth to verify the child is the issue of the royal mother's body. Not that someone would do something out of the ordinary, but still.

It's kind of sad for the baby to be the first boy passed over because of the new rules of succession. It's something he'll always have to bear, being the first. It wouldn't be so bad if the first child had been a girl, because she would be the oldest.

I don't understand why Harry doesn't have to have a morganatic marriage with that woman he's marrying. He must really be favored to have a full marriage and wedding.

Would love to see the rules enforced for morganatic marriage for Harry. Sparkle would have a fucking meltdown.

I predict Donald. Prince Donald of Scotland.

I'm so relieved. Three babies for William assures us that none of Harry's mixed breed tots will ever ascend to the thrown.

[quote] It's kind of sad for the baby to be the first boy passed over because of the new rules of succession. It's something he'll always have to bear, being the first. It wouldn't be so bad if the first child had been a girl, because she would be the oldest.

He's been born into wealth beyond most people's wildest dreams. He'll be fine.

Anyway, I doubt Charlotte will ever become Queen. George will probably have children of his own.

[quote]It's kind of sad for the baby to be the first boy passed over because of the new rules of succession. It's something he'll always have to bear, being the first.

Yes because it’s always been such a barrel of fun for all the women who’ve been passed over for centuries for no other reason than their sex.

[quote] Anyway, I doubt Charlotte will ever become Queen. George will probably have children of his own.

That's what we used to say about our elder brothers.

{quote]ascend to the thrown.

What?! Ascend to those that were thrown off of a building? So confusing.

Is he really going to be named Philip Michael?

Good lord this woman is a baby birthing machine. She drops them out, throws on the heels and is good to go. No swollen ankles, not even marks on her hands from the IV drip. I’m a guy and I’m jealous of her resilience. Class act that one!

[quote] The Brits claim to be so smirkingly superior to Americans and yet they have this nonsense royal family

Um, our "royalty" is just as nonsensical based more on celebrity - and carries no duties. Why do we look down on the historical traditions of other countries and cultures?

a friend who does western astrology did new baby's chart and was blown away by his aspects, esp those between the three siblings (George, Charlotte & this one.).

Someone here should do a royal astrology thread, for those who want to know about this. there are always astrology buffs here who know a lot and post.

New royal baby may someday lead a revolt with the support of the nobles. I wonder if the astrology shows that. George might be wise to keep his brother held far from London.

Charlotte reminds me of someone

[quote] If Elizabeth did not think Charles was bad luck, who are we to quibble

He's been terrible luck for her. He's done more harm to the monarchy than Edward the VII

Astrology is a fucking pile of horseshit.

[quote]Richard = Richard II (gay, murdered)

That was Edward II.

I’m voting for Arthur Philip Charles as the new baby’s name.

They should name him Timothée.

Right, R195, Richard II was deposed and died under mysterious circumstances. Sometimes it all blurs together . . .

How nice! A spare.

Charlotte is the spare r198 as the rules have changed and she in line after her brother George. This baby was just for shits and giggles.

Quite all right, R197. No one expects you to remember that far back.

🙈 What if Harry and Meggie's kid comes out looking like Buckwheat?

A lot of bookies have Albert as the most likely name. I doubt it will be Philip as he married in, although it will probably be in the middle somewhere. Phillip is only marginally better than Albert. They’re both awful. Frederick or James are both considered outside chances as names too.

I think it was an Edward who was Gay. Richard the Lion Hearted was Gay. but there was also an Edward who was gay. Remember in that movie Braveheart, Edward the Longshanks was the king of England? His son was Gay and had a Gay lover. in real life too. Anyway as I recall his lover met with a terrible end, not thrown out a window as he was in the movie, but tortured and murdered by people in the court. I would think Edward would be an ill fated name too. there were two Edwards who came to bad ends before there ever was Edward the VIII, Duke of Windsor.

Which Saints are Patron Saints of England? I know St. George is. What about Stephen? There was a King Stephen. He was a Usurper but still... Is Harry a Harold or a Henry?

Name the new prince, Stephen. Great name and it means "crown." Very regal.

There's a Phillip in Spain and an Albert in Monaco. Would they name a kid the same name as another country's monarch?

However, I second Phillip Michael Thomas.

I only suggested Philip Michael because then they would acknowledge Prince Philip and Catherine's father, Michael too. But Philip Michael Thomas is a TV actor isn't he?

Why does the kid have to have four names anyway? Our custom is to have to. Americans are way more sensible in that regard.

R203 Harry’s given name is Henry

Betting odds for the baby’s name in case anyone is interested.

Fauntleroy Ulster Chauncy Kenneth

why can't they be radical and name the baby water?

or thames? after river thames? something wild, out there!!!

I think his name will be Prince Billy Joe Bob.

They don't have morganatic marriages.

In all seriousness: Why do they dress the kids like Hummel figurines or those "Dick and Jane" books?

Why not take a leaf out of a rapper’s or the Presidents play book and name him something regal like Prince or Baron or Sir or even Earl!

Then he can be Prince Prince. Or Prince Earl Barron.

I like Arthur. Most of the generation born when the name was last most popular have passed on.

I haven't seen anything about what they did with the royal afterbirth.

Fredrick would be nice.

I like the name Arthur.

And isn't "Frederick" the name of the Crown Prince of Denmark?

Prince Barak has a nice ring to it.

[quote]I haven't seen anything about what they did with the royal afterbirth.

It'll be a secret ingredient in the next British Bake-off.

182 = Princess Michael of Kent, polishing her brooches.

Albert Philip Charles Henry.

There are four name given.

Like Harry: Henry Charles Albert David

[quote]I'm so relieved. Three babies for William assures us that none of Harry's mixed breed tots will ever ascend to the thrown.

So basically, you're some hateful, lonely, pathetic cunt who will no doubt die alone knowing you were never truly loved. Keep that in mind. You will die never having been genuinely loved because you're just a rotten waste of life

Oh, and of course, we can't forget the usual: A semi-literate moron. It's "throne," you ignorant fuck.

Oops, it appears that William's children have only three names..

Albert Philip Charles

R213 it's their brand. They wear normal clothes in their everyday lives.

Oliver Twist

This thread get 10/10 for hilarity. Thanks to all DL comedians!

Kate looked pretty fabulous, having just given birth to Baby #3.

you can go home straight away?

Prince William has like no ass. None. I mean, don't they have a home gym or something?

That's hot, r230.

I know it's the way I'm wired that I love a guy with a flat ass. Huge turn on.

You can these days r229. My sister went home the day after she had her second baby and she didn’t even have a nanny, driver, housekeeper, groundskeeper or maid. I’m sure for Kate, as opposed to most other mothers, it’s much more relaxing at home then it is at hospital.

I think George is in his school uniform r213

[quote] I have to say William and Kate do things well. If this is Gen X royalty for the 21st Century, good on them.

They were both born in 1982, thus, they’re Millennials, hun.

Why would it make a difference if someone had a groundskeeper, unless it was a baby animal.

Idiot!

Since you clearly don’t know what a groundskeeper is r235, I feel you may be the idiot.

A fancy term for gardener still has no bearing on a baby. Still an idiot.

Unfortunately, the name will be "John."

William let it slip a few weeks ago that he would insist the kid be called "Jack" or Jackie."

The Brits are a strange lot! They are either camping out outside the hospital for 2 weeks, covered in union jacks, or else railing about the useless royals in the comments section of the DM.

"...what they did with the royal afterbirth"

That'll be Fergie's hat at the next Ascot.

[quote] William let it slip a few weeks ago that he would insist the kid be called "Jack" or Jackie."

Fortunately it's a boy. There can only be one Jackie on Assistance.

Really r237? People don’t maintain the gardens once a baby is born. The weeds just stop growing, the lawn mows itself, roses are pruned by passers by? You have no idea what a groundskeeper does and now you believe that gardens magically look after themselves because there’s a newborn in the house. No only did you miss the original point you have continued to call other people idiots when you are by far the biggest one.

So cringy that Kate's hairdresser always comes to do a blow dry for Kate's exit for hospital.

Am I the only one who thinks she's a hopeless hairdresser? And don't get me started on her totally inexperienced and unqualified "stylist".

Kate’s hair is terrible. It always looks like a wig instead of her own hair. She should lop it off but she won’t because she’s basic.

Kate’s hair is really her crowning glory. She’s pretty but not pretty enough to pull off a bob or a short haircut. Although I’m her 40s she’ll have to come up with some other do, she can’t keep it long forever.

R238 It seems he was joking. He was at a football match and he only said that to fans after a footballer named Jack scored a goal.

Kate could so so much better with her look. She has the raw materials - height, slimness, regular features, good teeth, ok skin and an unlimited budget. Queen Letizia hits the right note 99.9% of the time; sophisticated, feminine, memorable but yet unthreatening. I'd like to see Kate with her hair up in a French twist, red lipstick, wearing pencil skirts or smart trousers, instead of all her awful a-line frocks and jeans. Right now, she looks like she's trying to stay young, and she looks dowdy. And yet she spends a fortune!

R246, those royals --what a bunch of cards!

R2, that's not a concern of theirs. Look at their clothes.

Can you imagine going through life saying inane stuff like that r248? Everyone laughing around you even though it’s only vaguely amusing. Although it does make me wonder how much he did it just to screw with the bookies.

Congratulations! on the birth of the new baby boy, Mr and Mrs Wales. We hope for many future blessings for the whole family. Best wishes.

Today I Suppose Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip will pop over to Kensington to see the new bairn. I swear at 93 I don't see where Betty Windsor gets her energy. I'd be exhausted just getting dressed every day but she manages to get out a do stuff. And she walks, yes she is slower than she used to be, but she walks on her own and I find that remarkable.

Who are you talking to r251? Do you think Kate’s breastfeeding and cruising datalounge on her iPhone?

The Queen rode yesterday, R252.... pictures in the Mail.

Most British men have asses flatter than cardboard. Go figure.

I'm also amazed at how sharp and mobile the Queen still is, at her age. The fact that she still has a full calendar and gets out and about at 92 is quite remarkable. I've known several people in their 90s and most of them can barely walk

[quote] Do you think Kate’s breastfeeding and cruising datalounge on her iPhone?

You can always tell the truly stupid ones online who think somehow their comment on a story will make its way back to the subject of said story.

The oldest living women all have one thing in common - they never worked a day in their lives and had money. Real work is what stresses people and causes illnesses.

[quote]Most British men have asses flatter than cardboard. Go figure.

Even if it were true they'd be better than those weird freaky ladybuns so admired by DLers.

[quote]Go figure.

Stupid meaningless expression, to go with your spastic remark. Go figure.

I see someone hasn't had their morning coffee.

After giving that lecture, R223 went to help deport more scary black people from Israel.

[quote]I see someone hasn't had their morning coffee.

Go figure.

R253 and R257 - Why, you miserable sons of bitches! I merely took the opportunity to express a completely appropriate sentiment to the occasion! SOMEONE should have stated it amid all the typical DL vitriol posing as comedy! Think of my statement as being a very small bit of light amid the darkness. You complete SHITS! Don't you both have some bubble, bubble, toil and trouble you should be working on instead of ridiculing someone's propensity for saying something KIND?!!

Oh dear...

People are predicting a life of privilege and little responsibility for the new baby...

[quote]SOMEONE should have stated it amid all the typical DL vitriol posing as comedy!

Go figure.

Thanks so much R267 Delightful

Great to see R267 - Immediately made me think of the lyrics to Nat King Cole's "Nature Boy"

WTF is all the fuss about? Tone it down, peeps! Can't you see I'm sleeping.

r258

What? That's hardly true, the last few oldest living women have been from poor to modest backgrounds and died at 117

A comparison of the three Cambridge children as they left the hospital.

LOL! R270, after seeing this, I think they ought to name him Ebeneezer! He reminds me of Reginald Owen as Scrooge in the 1938 version of A Christmas Carol.

Charlotte carried herself with the most grace

R274 - Yes, Princess Charlotte was poised and quite confident for her age. Her brother was lethargic and unimpressed.

Fun Fact: the baby prince was born on April 23 which happens to be Lady Gabriella Windsor's birthday. She's the daughter of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent.

The Kate Middleton way of birthing might be true antisemitism at play...

R277, it sure ain’t the Jewish delivery I had with Melissa. Knocked me out and woke me up when the hairdresser arrived.

I'd bet they used very little anesthesia for the births, which is part of why Kate looks so alert and steady only hours after giving birth. Of course she looked exhausted, but she seemed to be moving well. The other thing is that clearly she kept her weight down and she is very athletic. She exercised. Probably had her own personal trainer. We will never know the secret details. But I used to work in a hospital as a nurses aide and believe me when you worked on the maternity floor you saw all kinds. The ones who had the most difficulty were the fat ones and the ones who needed lots of meds "for the pain" . But if everything is working for mother and baby, they get you out of there within 48 hours now, or less.

[quote]After giving that lecture, [R223] went to help deport more scary black people from Israel.

Ironically, I'm actually part Palestinian Christian and my family is the one that suffers due to the nefarious caricature created about us, but nice try. You're one of those "tiki torch" geniuses, I take it.

Congratulations on failing at what should be an easy task: Being a decent humanbeing who treats people as individuals. Only a fucking loser with no life would be so full of a hate that you already express venom for the unborn children of a family that isn't isn't even yours. Assess your life and figure out why it went so wrong.

They were interviewing people on the street in front of the hospital on the BBC news and most of the fraus seemed to be American. What did they do, fly over for the event?

Also, of course, they had to find a black woman in the crowds and film her going nuts over the event. But generally, all Royal events are very white, but can no longer be seen to be. They'll probably bus in all sorts to appear in the crowds for Harry's wedding.

-isn't*

[quote][R274] - Yes, Princess Charlotte was poised and quite confident for her age. Her brother was lethargic and unimpressed.

He's never been much of a smiler. He hardly smiled at all until he was about two.

He knows he’ll have to do everything right while she and her younger brother can slut it up on endless vacations away from the paps.

I'm sure the kid smiles all of the time, just not when creepy strangers are staring at him.

And if you told me that picture @R283 was of a colorized 1940s Ukrainian child, I'd believe it.

[quote]He knows he’ll have to do everything right while she and her younger brother can slut it up on endless vacations away from the paps.

If he doesn't make it - she'll have to step in.

R280 here: Just a correction: "who suffers"*

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[quote] He's never been much of a smiler. He hardly smiled at all until he was about two.

I like George. I was one of those kids who didn't smile all the time. Why do adults expect kids to smile all the time?

I watched the video of William taking the kids into the hospital and it appeared that William leaned down and told the kids to wave. (That was when Charlotte started waving.) But George put his head down and kept on going.

It reminded me of the story about Diana telling little William that he would have to get used to the attention with Williams's response "Don't like 'tographers."

Like father, like son.

I'm A-OK but the new baby is so loud I need earphones.

When are they going to announce his goddam name!!!

Is it wrong of me that when I was looking at the DM photos of William and Catherine on the step of the hospital with the new baby, William had his shirt open at the collar and you could see his thick hairy chest, and I became faint?

The Onion's take on the baby:

I understand if Will and Kate want to stay at home with their children. Something queen never was able to do.

R291 - the name is usually announced about three days after its birth. The Queen has to be consulted and her approval has be to given. Also, the royal family have to be informed before the public hears the name. We should hear it by the end of the week if tradition is kept.

That's hilarious, r293

I could never find William attractive even when he was younger. He looks exactly like my cousin.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I hope they name him Phillip Michael Thomas

R298 - I don't even think Harry has been chosen to be godparent to any of their children so why the hell would Meghan think she's in the running? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Royal Baby china pattern

There are people whose whole homes are dedicated to that shit.

# 2

About Kate's appearance yesterday.

Rather nice with a bit of humor.

And, for good measure, a shot across the bow for someone else mentioned on DL, no names please...

[quote] Because whatever criticism may be levelled at Kate, no one can deny that she takes her responsibilities as a royal very seriously. She is very respectful of her privilege and position – and she re-pays the British public by always making the best of efforts on their behalf.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Bets on how long the Kate-hating frau mob at Celebitchy takes to attack that article, R304? I give it three hours or less.

I hate people who hate her. It's pathetic.

The Kate vs. Meghan argument is pretty useless. They're completely different people. Comparing anyone to another is a tiresome preoccupation.

Agreed R308. They are both gorgeous as well

The Cambridges with their newborns over the years.

Kate had grown on me like a fungus. She’s the perfect royal bride. Pops out heirs like a champ and doesn’t complain. She’ll never divorce him and I doubt he will ever cheat on her.

And he doesn't have to worry about what kind of getup she will show up in next.

Why the hell does the British Queen need all that saving constantly? Is she a klutz?

God save the Queen!

A few years ago it seemed like everyone hated Kate. Now they all like Kate and hate Meghan.

Does Wills slap her when he busts his load?

That would be hot.

Miss Cleo, r190 is back.

[quote] A few years ago it seemed like everyone hated Kate. Now they all like Kate and hate Meghan.

This was just like how years ago when mad men was on Dataloungers hated Betty until Don took up with Megan Calvet.

Dataloungers hate pretty women who take attractive men away from them. They hated Betty then Megan for taking Don Draper away from them, and they hated Kate Middleton from taking Prince William away, and now they hate Meghan Markle for taking Prince Harry away.

They are, indeed, deeply jealous bitches.

I don't/didn't hate any of them - except for Megan Calvet. She was not spectacular enough for Don.

[quote] except for Megan Calvet. She was not spectacular enough for Don.

And your reasoning proves my point--thanks.

So they'll announce the name Thursday?

[quote]Dataloungers hate pretty women who take attractive men away from them. They hated Betty then Megan for taking Don Draper away from them, and they hated Kate Middleton from taking Prince William away, and now they hate Meghan Markle for taking Prince Harry away. They are, indeed, deeply jealous bitches.

The Daily Mail comments about her make Datalounge sound like Dr. Quinn.

Usually they wait two days until they announce the name, r321.

I predict:

Prince Atherton Indigo Ocean Windsor-Mountbatten

I hope them name him Damien, for the attention.

They may as well name him Safety Net, that’s what he is.

Or:

"Lazy Days Forever," for Kate, r326

The bookies are now saying the most likely choice is Arthur. Ugh.

Arthur is a terrible name. I hope they pass.

Kate will take control:

Michael Francis Middleton Windsor-Mountbatten

[quote]The Kate vs. Meghan argument is pretty useless

And pathetic. I can only imagine the "oil paintings" both on DL and the Daily Shitrag who attack either of these clearly attractive women. Losers.

Arthur's making a comeback.

Like 'Emma' and the old lady names that unthinkably (at the time) came back, the last wave of old Arthurs are all but gone.

R329 The Queen has final say. The rumour was that Kate’s preference for the first baby was Alexander George but the Queen insisted George be his first name in honour of her father. Although I imagine with this third baby she might let them have whatever they want provided it’s an appropriately royal name. Who knows.

The baby will be named "Arthur Philip Charles" Meanwhile, back at the cottage, Meghan is starting to sweat bullets even though a distinct frost chills her to the bone . Quick! Someone throw her an extra fluff stuffed quilt for her feet! Aye, as the magnitude of what she's bitten off begins to dawn more brightly on her, I say to her that she has not choice now but to CHEW IT!

I'm embarrassed to admit I have cousins with children who have three of those four names, R333.

Lol r335 is there a Hayden in there as well? That was popular when I was growing up. Although somewhere a long the line it was dropped for Jayden.

R334, you know nothing of the younger frau. This is their Everest. Her babes will play with a future King and heirs, and enjoy the HRH titles. Even divorced, she will remain one of the world's most famous women. She has Sarah Ferguson as an example of what not to do. She'll be just fine chewing the fat.

Thankfully, no, R336.

Fortunately of late, they've gone more simple and/or biblical with names like "Joseph" and "Matthew."

Stalker

who gives a shit if it's Arthur??? The kid will have no worries for the rest of his life. fucking welfare cunt!

R340 to be fair Arthur is the name of a lot of guys on welfare so I guess if the shoe fits....

R174 thought so too R299.

Doesn't most of their income come from their land holdings and not the taxpayer?

It's work for welfare. I admire them. They've taken that hand up and really made something of themselves.

Albert Philip Charles

Little older bro, George, shows all signs of becoming a future DLer.

...and again....

... I mean, really...

William will probably be the last monarch, as Britain is expected to be majority Muslim by 2040. So even if Prince George turns out to be gay, the monarchy will be gone by then.

So couple things... this is presumably their last child so any names really important to Kate will get precedence. Plus the boy is unlikely to ascend to the throne, so less pressure in that department although not license to go with JT or Kyle. Also, Charlotte is the feminine of Charles so he's kinda got his due at this point. On that basis I think the contenders are:

Michael, Kate's father, also Prince Michael of Kent. Prince William is fond of the Middleton's too. James, Kate's brother but also a royal name - although used as a given name by Prince Edward's son so it won't be a given name. Philip, which I think would please the Queen, honour the Duke, and please William who is apparently quite fond of his grandfather. Plus within the family the old man is a pretty towering figure who doesn't get as much credit as he deserves. Kate got to use Alexander as a name for George.

So my money is on Philip as the first name, followed by Michael James.

Gurls, we've discussed this a while back:

To solidify William's lineage (rather than Andrew's or Edward's or Harry's) in the succession of The Crown, they (W & K) used the assistance of high-tech bio-tech to ensure the baby would be a Boy.

Voila, Prince Arthur!

why would it need to be a boy r351? They have two kids, the daughter doesn't lose her spot in line because this one came along.They changed the laws.

What makes you think they can't have a Queen?

Prince Alastair.

My nephew aged 5 has two friends named Albert, although one goes by Bertie and the other Alby. So I guess it’s back in fashion.

Whatever it is, we're Dataloungers and we will be disappointed.

So true r355. The minute it’s announced the pro and against tribes will go to war.

I agree abut the Philip and the Michael part. Hadn't thought of James but it's a good name, as is Albert. I hope they leave Arthur alone.

I also think they had genetic "assistance" with birthing a boy. That's why I'm betting they will have one more kid, and it'll be a girl. All planned and orderly.

The RF doesn't want anything to do with the name "Michael," in any form:

A source close to the Palace has said the name will be Tyrone or D'Wayne.

Someone just pointed out to me that naming him Prince Albert might not fly because it’s also the name of the male genital piercing. Fancy having to explain that to the Queen.

[quote] In all seriousness: Why do they dress the kids like Hummel figurines or those "Dick and Jane" books?

They are dressing them like Diana dressed William and Harry when they were young. The same with Kate wearing almost the same exact dress as Diana when she went home from the hospital with William and Harry.

It's just a continuation of the last two years of throwing Diana in everyone's face. It's a slap in the face to their father

Most kids are cute but this future king is ugly as fuck.

in fact, all their kids are fug.

How is doing something in memory of Diana, like wearing a dress of a certain color, a slap in the face to their father?

How is it wrong to want to remember a woman who would have been the baby's grandmother?

The grandfather is still here. He can get in a car and come to see his new grandson.

It's sly that they named their first born George. Prince Charles had long talked about wanting to reign as King George. Evidently they are allowed to pick out a name they want when they become King. With Prince George already there, it would be awkward for Charles to pick George now

[quote]The grandfather is still here. He can get in a car and come to see his new grandson

He'll have to make an appointment first. And he'd be the first one to tell you that

Kate and Meghan are rumored to get along quite well via the many leaks Meghan Markle gives to the media. She also leaks made-up gossip about Kate and lately has "leaked" that she's being considered for godmother. All bullshit.

If he needs to make an appointment, then let him so so. Dropping in on parents with a brand new baby - anyone in their right mind knows to not just show up when you want.

Charles is jealous of the relationship that the Middletons have with the grandchildren, particularly their grandmother.

Because Charles is a doofus.

Nobody trumps grandmothers. Particularly the maternal grandmother.

So, he whines.

There's no "slap in the face to their father." William and Kate adore Charles. They named Charlotte after him.

Dataloungers want everything to be like "Dynasty."

Does this mean Kate can be Sparkle's maid of honor now?

Yay!

If Kate really wanted to honor Diana, she would dye her hair blond and get a Diana hairdo.

I wonder if that would keep William from constantly impregnating her.

[quote]R95 I have always found the Royal Family an anachronistic embarrassment, beloved of old dears and silly queens , but it seems the public have a need to worship and they act as a lightening rod for that.

Word.

[quote]William and Kate adore Charles. They named Charlotte after him.

It seems an odd coincidence that the kids have the same names as George III and his wife. To keep the streak going, they should name the royal offspring Frederick, Ernest Augustus or Adolphus.

The unrelenting efforts by the Brit media to optimally present Kate and Megs to the public should be a master PR class in The Successful Selling of Banality.

Charlotte is adorable.

She’s seems like a sweet little girl r374 but she’s not especially cute. She’s only two though, so she might grow into a beauty.

R364 they can’t name their children whatever they like. George was named after the Queen’s father. She chose the name.

R362, I couldn't agree less. Despite his fey mannerisms, Prince George is gorgeous. He could be a child model. And Princess Charlotte is the bomb, with all her confidence. She's also a very pretty child. Ugly royal children abound however, eg, Lady Louise and the York sisters, now grown up.

This kid doesn’t have a name yet?

I think Charlotte is the cutest little thing, for a child. She doesn't necessarily have what will be pretty features on an adult woman. But sometimes it's hard to predict.

Charlotte reminds me of Kathy Bates in Misery

R367 It was in Daily Mail how Charles felt left out when Kate’s parents saw George often and Charles hardly ever

Kate needed help and was a nervous wreck after George was born. They were also doing extensive renovations to Kensington, so right after he was born, she ran to her parents house to recuperate and get help from her Ma. There was nothing odd r sinister about it. And Charles simply made a silly remark about not getting to see the kid. I think people invest these innocuous comments with too much importance. The other thing to remember is that the Queen and Prince Philip have slowed down a lot in the past two or three years. Charles is more visible and much busier than he was five years ago or even three years ago.

Charles is a royal. If he was gagging to see his grandson he could have seen him. I wouldn’t put too much stock in anything the Daily Mail claims.

Charlotte looks a lot like the Queen. Those Windsor genes are strong AF.

R384, I agree. She really does. Charles has a fucking schedule. He can't just pop over like Pippa and Eugenie or Carol Middleton. They already said he'd be there in a day or two. My goodness. When a family brings home a new baby, and already has two toddlers at home waiting, it's chaotic and the last thing they need is to have to entertain company. They don't have a maternity nurse, just the Nanny who is trying to keep up with George and Charlotte. If Charles wants to be helpful he can send dinner or do the washing up after dinner.

Ha ha If HRH Charles pays anyone a visit longer than an hour, he brings along his own royal toilet seat and a royal plumber to install it. I bet he was not encouraged to spend time with the Cambridges' kids because of the way Wills and Harry must feel about Camilla.

R384, I alternate thinking she looks like the queen and like Carole Middleton. She'll be fine looking when she grows up as long as she doesn't develop the Windsor chin.

I hear Kate is preggers again.

The Queen "requested" they name him George in memory of her father.

Which is why I think there is a real chance that this boy will be named Michael.

Philip Michael. At least I think it might be. I think for Prince Philip and Kate's father. If they don't go with Philip I bet Harry's first boy will be Philip. Absolutely. Harry is close to and crazy about his grandfather.

R386 time and again reports have said they get on well wit( Camilla. I think they saw the crazy in their mom a little too up close and personal too many times to think anyone else is responsible for it.

Are they going to announce the name today or what?

I hear George has already volunteered to breastfeed the child.

R393, has them all in hysterics, nightly, at his local gay bar.

All of Kate's family have visited to see the new baby. So far, it's crickets from the royal family. Everyone is very busy.

Bitches, that name is taken!

[quote]All of Kate's family have visited to see the new baby

Link with pics, please.

R397 - go to Daily Mail and get the links yourself. I'm not your bloody errand boy.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I'm hoping they name the prince Arthur.

DL fave Bradley James was always good fun as Prince Arthur on BBC's "Merlin."

Oh, and yeah, it's a historic and traditional name.

E403 = I like Arthur. King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. One of Queen Victoria's son and Lady Sarah Chatto's son.

Another name not often mentioned is Alfred - King Alfred the Great and another son of Queen Victoria.

Thomas is the name of Camilla's son so I'm not sure about that name.

I think Philip would be a great name too.

Nothing too Catholic. Like Francis Xavier.

They already have a George so they should call this baby John (they can change the misfortune tied to this name).

Then any future boys can be named Paul and Ringo (aka Richard).

are they EVER going to name the brat?

I believe the relevant history is of the Royal House (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, later changed to Windsor), not all past royals.

[quote]R376 they can’t name their children whatever they like.

If they rigged it right, they could establish a nickname they like better, maybe, that circumvented Big Liz's decree.

I hope Harry and Sparkle suggest an unpronouncable name, like Ashrakhandraa or something...just to piss off Big Mama.

[quote][R364] they can’t name their children whatever they like. George was named after the Queen’s father. She chose the name.

The Queen did not choose that name, W&K did but had to get at least her buy in as George was the in-line heir. They won't need her approval for this name although rest assured they'll be reasonable and choose something appropriate. They're not going out of their way to be radical, but it will be their choice.

For those upthread discussion Charles's current limited involvement with his grandkids: there may be tension with William that has led to some of this, wouldn't be surprised. More likely its busy schedules. The Middletons have all the time in the world to stop by when they want, they don't have a calendar like Charles does.

Also, rest assured the kids will eventually be spending a lot of time with Grandpa Charles once they hit the teen and adult years, esp George who as heir will need training. They'll have plenty of time when they're older to have to spend with the Windsors, they can spend more time now with other relatives when little.

R411 - getting the Queen's approval is tradition. She has rejected names in the past. For example, Andrew and Fergie had the name of Annabel picked out for their firstborn daughter and the Queen vetoed it. She probably didn't want anyone to think that she was named after the popular London nightclub, Annabel's. They chose something more acceptable like Beatrice (the name of Queen Victoria's youngest daughter).

R408, I can't believe there's any rule limiting British history to the "Windsor" era (Saxe-Gotha-etc) for the purposes of naming a child fifth in line to the throne.

Another James or John would revive either of those classic and ancient names, surely.

It’s not a rule. It’s a family tradition. See reference to “Beatrice’ at r412

R412 - I can think of another instance when a monarch said "no" to a name. The Duke and Duchess of York (future King George and Queen Elizabeth) wanted to name their second daughter Ann Margaret. The King couldn't stand the name Ann so they called her Margaret Rose. Of course, years later, the Queen named her only daughter Anne with an "e" at the end. Oh the irony!

[quote] I believe the relevant history is of the Royal House (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, later changed to Windsor), not all past royals

No. Edward VII (of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) and Alexandra named their daughter "Maud" after the Enpress maud/Matilda, "Lady of the English," who was the daughter of Henry I and was of the House of Normandy. And George VI and the Queen Mother named Princess Margaret after the daughter of Henry III, who was a Plantagenet.

Also, remember Queen Victoria just named her children whatever she liked--she named her second daughter Princess Alice because "Alice" was her beloved prime minister Lord Melbourne's favorite name for a girl.

Prince Edward's son is named James.

That might not work - 2 James at family events?

R417 - James is also the name of Kate's brother. It may be a middle name but I'd be surprised if it was a first name.

They do have a weird thing lately about not naming children after people who are already alive. But remember the queen has spent most of her life being "the other Elizabeth," so it's not unthinkable.

Arthur is also the name of the son of Lady Sarah Chatto (Princess Margaret's daughter), and Richard is the name of the current royal Duke of Gloucester, so it's not like those names also will be in use at family events as well as James. The current royal family is so large that most of the usual royal men's names have already been taken.

I like "Alfred"--I'd love to see them use that. It's such a weird old fashioned name that "Prince Alfie" would be really cool.

I think the Queen waits for them to bring the baby to her.

If they wanted to use "Alexander" for George, can't they use it now for this new baby?

R422 - yes, they can use Alexander if they want to but why use one of George's middle names? There are instances of reusing names.

The Queen used Edward as one of Prince Andrew's middle names and then, four years later, chose Edward as the first name of her youngest son. Queen Victoria wanted all of her girls to have her name in there somewhere and the boys to have Albert.

Forgot to mention that Alexander is the name of the Earl of Ulster, the son of the Queen's cousin the Duke of Gloucester.

Stephen and Maud/Matilda were at war with one another during the "Time of Anarchy" after Stephen was said to have had his brother poisoned so he could rule. His brother had wanted his daughter Maud to be regent until her son was of age. Henry II. Maud's brother, the heir to the throne was killed in a shipwreck at sea. There's a fairly accurate account of it in the Ken Follett historical novel Pillars of the Earth. Anyway, even if Stephen was a usurper, his reputation as king was that he was a good ruler. So I think the name Stephen is an option

How about Prince Geoffrey? He became Archbishop of York. He was one of Henry II (Plantagenet. ) sons. Henry II had Henry, William, Richard, John, and Geoffrey.

John or Richard are considered “bad luck” names for top royalty in England. John II signed the Magna Carta which was disapproved by royalty. And a couple of other Johns were sickly. Richard III ruined Richard. Such are royal name superstitions.

[quote] Does this mean Kate can be Sparkle's maid of honor now?

No. Kate is married, so she could only be her matron of honor.

Alexander Downer, the Australian High Commissioner to the UK, suggested Alexander as a joke and Prince William replied “funny you should say that...”

Arthur has been already been taken and cannot be improved.

I don't think Meghan and Harry's kids will be considered/called "princes" or "princesses," correct?

Albert it is.

They could name him Albert after the queen's father as well.

Prince Bertie

Albert Philip Charles

So the queen vetoed Annabel and approved of Eugenie? I know which I'd rather be named.

Prince Albert is the name of type of piercing people have on their dicks. I doubt they’ll be keen on that, unless no one has the courage to tell them.

R430, they would not be Princes or Princesses unless Her Majesty elects to grant them the titles, as she did with Prince William’s children. However, if Charles becomes King, they would become Princes or Princesses. Lord only knows what would happen if one of them decided to be “gender free.”

Current law is children of the monarch and grandchildren born to the monarch’s sons are Princes and Princesses.

Prince Charles has it explained...

R432 The Queens father was George, not Albert.

R435, some loophole acronym like Zir Royal Highness PrincNeXT comes to mind.

No. The Queen’s father was Albert. He reigned as George.

Thank you r439.

R437 is hereby sentenced to binge watch season 1 of The Crown followed by The King’s Speech.

R441 what are you talking about? R437 is correct.

No, he is not.

Wikipedia description of The King’s Speech:

[quote]At the closing of the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley Stadium, the Prince Albert, Duke of York, the second son of King George V, addresses them with a strong stammer. His search for treatment has been discouraging, but his wife Elizabeth persuades him to see the Australian-born Lionel Logue, a non-medically trained Harley Street speech defects therapist. "Bertie," as he is called by his family, believes the first session is not going well although Lionel (he insists that all his patients address him as such) manages to have the potential client recite, on an acetate recording, Hamlet's "To be, or not to be" soliloquy sublimely all the while hearing piped-in classical music on a pair of head phones. Bertie is disappointed and Lionel gives him the recording as a souvenir.

Sorry, I confused r429 with r437. Carry on.

Anyway, Albert is a lame name, the male equivalent of Hilda or Gertrude. This prince needs something jazzy and modern, like a footballer's name like Dave or Kevin, or maybe something more exotic like D'Shon or Shaquille or what about something biblical like Zebediah? Or really, the very best possible choice for modern Britain would be the current most popular name - Mohammed.

r435 I'm going to guess that she won't elect to style them Prince/Princess and Harry & Meghan will be happy with that. Lord/Lady Mountbatten-Windsor will do, until the Queen passes and they get the automatic upgrade.

Kevin?!! God heavens!!

Is Kevin a trashy name?

R447 it’s a jok. Try to keep up.

[quote] So the queen vetoed Annabel and approved of Eugenie? I know which I'd rather be named.

Eugenie had royal precedent; Annabel did not. Queen Victoria had a granddaughter named Victoria Eugenie who later became the queen of Spain.

The new baby's name will be out of this world. Like names of stars in outerspace! Hubert perhaps?

The name will be out of the ordinary and not what everyone expects. that is my gut feeling.

Newton.

I think the boy will be named after someone great like a scientist or artist or astronaut.

I don’t suppose anyone here can anyone explain why the Queen’s father ruled as George rather than with his birth name Albert? What the tradition or thinking behind that?

[quote] I don’t suppose anyone here can anyone explain why the Queen’s father ruled as George rather than with his birth name Albert? What the tradition or thinking behind that?

The prime minister at the time, Stanley Baldwin, asked him to rule under the name George VI so as to retain a sense of continuity with his father, george V, who had died the year before. The king who preceded George VI, his brother Edward VIII, ahd really upset the status quo by abdicating, and Baldwin and his cabinet felt that the british people wanted some feelings of continuity between the new king and his father (who had reigned for 25 years), and thus asked he use his father's name.

It should also be noted that no one named Albert in line for the British throne ever used it as a regnal name. Edward VII was supposed to reign as "Albert Edward I" ("Albert Edward" being his first two names, the name of his father and his paternal grandfather), but he said that there could only ever be one Albert, his father.

As someone upthread mentioned, Queen Victoria wanted all British kings after her named Albert and all queens after her named Victoria, and she made sure either name was in each of his children's names. But she never got her wish.

Kevin is traditionally an Irish name, so doubt they'll pick that.

One might note that Edward VIII’s name was David.

Monarchs, like Popes, typically choose an historical name when they take office.

Don’t tell anyone, but I have it on good authority that our new royal prince of the blood, will be named HRH Prince Barry Abdul Gavin of Wales. The name Abdul is in honour of his parents’ love of the music of Paula Abdul, who will be performing Ave Maria at the christening.

Edward VIII's full Christian name was "Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David"--the last four names were the names of the patron saints of the four realms he was to rule: England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, respectively. The family used "David" to address him because they wanted a name that was otherwise not in use in the royal family; but as r458 says, most kings want to use a name that has precedent 9to establish continuity), so he chose his first name as his regnal name.

Right, R458. HRH Prince Bazza.

At first glance, R460, I read that as 'Prince Pizza.' The mind works in mysterious ways. I must be hungry.

^ Or fat. Really fat.

No, R462, you're the fat puppet!

R445, are you a wee bit racist? Mohammed is nowhere near being the most popular name in the UK. In 2017, it was the 8th most popular, after OLIVER, HARRY, GEORGE, JACK, JACOB, NOAH, CHARLIE.

I’d suggest Severus, but they probably don’t want any allusions to The Half-Blood Prince just now.

Can I suggest Cnut? It has a long and noble history.

Philip Alexander (or vice versa) would be nice. Arthur is still too dweeby. This kid is going to need all the help he can get. George will be king, Charlotte will be the Princess Royal, that leaves new kid to flounder around like Andrew has.

As does Ethelred.

Charlotte won’t be The Princess Royal until Auntie Anne dies. Just one at a time.

Yes but Anne wasn't made PR until she was an adult. She might pass away before Charlotte becomes of age.

But I thought of another possibility: Victor, after Victoria. I also like Louis, after Mountbatten but it's probably too Frenchified.

What about Trevor. Or Darren?

Why are Beatrice & Eugenie princesses, but Edward's daughter Louise isn't? (I know Anne chose not to give her children titles.)

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

R435, by current rules, Harry's children will not be princes and princesses until his father, Prince Charles, becomes king. Their titles would be dependent on whatever title Harry himself gets when he marries. Of course, that could change: Elizabeth extended the title "prince" and "princess" to all of William's children, not just the eldest, as per the Letters Patent that previously held. R472, technically, by the existing Letters Patent, Edward's children should be Princess Louise and Prince James. However, Edward and Sophie elected to have their children not use royal titles, so their titles are a function of Edward being Earl of Wessex (Louise, as daughter of an earl, is Lady Louise Windsor; James, as the eldest son, takes Edward's subsidiary title, Viscount Severn). No explanation was ever given for Edward and Sophie's choice, but it seems to have been well received by many who felt there were simply too many princes and princesses. Some have speculated that Charles will remove Beatrice and Eugenie's use of the title princess, but that seems unlikely.

>>>But if different spellings of the moniker are accounted for – including Mohammed and Mohammad – the Arabic name is by far the most popular boys' name overall.

From the Independent, but the link doesn't work.

Anne chose not to give her children aristocratic titles, but they would not have been Princesses. As to Edward’s kids, who would have been, see r474.

Could the Queen give this to Harry? I guess it would set off a war within the family. It's a pretty big deal.

The Duke of Lancaster is an ancient title which is informally used within Lancaster to describe Elizabeth II, the monarch of the United Kingdom and owner of the estates of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Duchy of Lancaster exists as a separate entity from the Crown Estate and currently provides income for the British monarch.

R477, no, the title Duke of Lancaster is attached to the Crown. The Queen is Duke of Lancaster. She cannot give it away.

R178 I don't quite understand it but thanks. The tv show I was watching talked about how much money it brings in. So, there's that. It's beautiful, castles, loads of history. But she never spends time there?

[quote] I alternate thinking she looks like the queen and like Carole Middleton.

Me too. I only started thinking she looked like the Queen the other day.

and the Queen Mother as a child.

It remains to be seen if Charlotte and George have chins. If they have chins, they'll be good looking. It was pretty obvious even when he was a child that Will was going to be a bit horse toothed and have a mouth that was catching flies. Harry was hopeless with his beedy, close together eyes and ski slope nose. When Will was super built and had his hair, his eyes, hair and body overruled his lower face, and he was hot. Now he'll never be that hot but I noticed recently he's lost weight, is more physically fit, and has gotten his remaining hair cut properly, so he's better. Saw a picture of Kate Middleton when she was six and she has George's exact face. Supposedly her brother is hot. If her brother looks like Kate, and George looks like Kate, and it's ok for a boy to look like Kate, they'll be fine.

Charlotte's looks change so much each year that it all really depends upon how her chin situation develops.

With Mohammed, remember that Mohamed Salah is a huge sports star in the UK.

This kid still doesn’t have a name?

I am not ready for Ethelred, R468.

He probably does r484, but they’ll tell us when they’re good and ready. Charles’ name wasn’t announced for a month

I don't think it will be Alexander because they've used it once and if they use it again they'd have to live forever with the diss to the Queen as being the culprit who prevented the use of Alexander as George's first name to begin with. Even if it's true, they wouldn't do it to her.

R485, great joke. Will people get it?

R466 meet r175.

Queen: William, go tell Kate we’re naming the baby Albert.

Kate: Babes, the old duck says his name will be Albert.

Kate: Oh fuck that. I’m not naming the baby after the piercing on your dick. Tell her to shove it.

Will: Kate says she prefers Thomas, Grandmother.

Queen: is she the bloody Queen, William? No. I am. It’s Albert.

Will: well you see, it’s just that Prince Albert is the name of a piece of jewellery the commoners like.

Queen: please don’t mention the great unwashed to me William, I don’t care what they do.

Will: She’s sticking with Albert, babes.

Kate: Oh that’s just great. The newspapers will have him nicknamed dick face by the end of the week. Who does she bloody think she is?

Will: she’s, like, literally THE Queen.

Kate: and youre the future king who’s scared of an old lady. Now shut up and go get Dickface. I can hear him crying.

It will be Philip.

My favorite Phil is Phil of the future. I want me some Raviv. Much better than a royal baby.

[quote] John or Richard are considered “bad luck” names for top royalty in England.

That's just not true. at all

King George V and Queen Mary (the current queen's grandparents) named a son John; and another of their sons, henry (the Duke of Gloucester) named his second son Richard--who is the current Duke of Gloucester.

The royal family absolutely do not believe in "unlucky"names, despite what Dataloungers like you keep saying (erroneously). If that were really true that they did, then the Queen would CERTAINLY not have named her eldest son "Charles," since Charles I was killed by his people, ad Charles II died without a legitimate son or daughter.

THE END.

r490, that would be hilarious if Lilibets father wern't named Albert.

Alexandrina reigned as Victoria

Albert reigned as Edward VI

George reigned as George V

David reigned as Edward VII

Albert reigned as George VI

Elizabeth reigns as Elizabeth.

^^^Elizabeth II

George V gained his position in the succession the throne when his brother Albert Victor died.

"Victor" would be a really cool name.

Albert Victor was thought to be a DataLounger. Many were relieved when he died. Fat Mary's daughter ended on the throne anyway.

[quote]David reigned as Edward VII

Uh, no R494. David was his family name. His given name was Edward. He reigned as Edward [bold]VIII[/bold].

But this Prince will never reign over anything. He’d be Prince Albert, just like the genitalia piercing, for the rest of his days. Of course it might not even be in contention as a name. Obviously no one really knows what they’re considering.

r498, that is the point of this part of the names discussion.

Edward VII was fully named Edward George Andrew Patrick David.

The Duchess called him David. So I stand by statement above that Sovereigns Regnant choose the name they rule under. To say that Edward reigned as Edward VII would not be correct. You could say that Bertie ruled as George VI as well.

I think the public is done accepting the monarch using a name other than by which they have always been known. Charles will stay Charles. William will stay William. It would be seen as too fake in the modern age to do otherwise. The Pope gets an exception, but that's it.

Agreed r501.

It's nice that you've decided that for everyone, r501.

British oddsmakers are now suddenly reporting a run of bets on the name "Louis."

They'll probably go with Arthur for the name, it's a Royal name which is quite trendy at the moment. I do wish they'd go slightly outside the box and choose something different like John or Richard. Princess Charlotte is a hoot, I can see her being the royal rebel in years to come.

R362 is crazy

Prince George is the sweetest little thing in Sweettown.

I was disappointed that Prince George wasn't named Arthur. I'd love to see a King Arthur.

r503, you smug twit. r501 was giving an opinion. His post began with I think. Are you one of those deplorable uncritical thinkers who constantly presumes insults unto themselves.

Gad, you are simple.

Hissy fit over, r508? I hope you feel better now.

Thank you for asking r509.

I believe so and yes I do.

.

r508

What about the name Daniel? Or Paul? Gareth? Tristan? Cedric? Chester? Chauncey? Edmund? Ernest? Fairfax? Fitzwilliam? Garrett?

Gerald? Godfrey? Gerard? Augustus? Leopold? Nicholas?

I've got it!!

"Nicholas Fitzwilliam Darcy"

He’d only ever be Prince Arthur r507, unless of course something were to happen to both his brother and sister, abdication, illness, beheading etc.

Cedric. I like Cedric.

I know r512, what I actually meant I wish George had been named Arthur instead of George, so that there would be a king by that name.

Oh I see r514. A King Arthur would be funny. You never know though. George might abdicate, Charlotte might marry Christian of Denmark and become their Queen instead and voila King Arthur!

I mean, Royal news used to be events. Now, I'm like whatever.

[quote]R420 I like "Alfred"--I'd love to see them use that.

Alfred is a lovely name...for an accountant.

r517, or the keeper of the Bat Cave...

Lol r518

Prince Albert in a can.

I'm crazy coz i think their kids are fug? They are! They are not good looking at all. they will grow up to be ugly or at most normal looking.

They will name the kid Conor!

It will NOT be a traditional name at all. bet on it!

How about I bet against you r522? No Conner or Cooper or Lachlan with this lot.

Somebody's got some of their numbers wrong.

[quote]Albert reigned as Edward VI

No, as Edward VII. Edward VI came to the throne in 1547.

[quote]David reigned as Edward VII

No, as Edward the VIII.

Philip Michael Arthur Charles

R524 is quite right. Edward VI was the issue of Henry VIII and his third Queen Jane Seymour. He was the nine year old boy King, half brother to Mary and Elizabeth firsts.

I'm going to go with Alexander Philip Michael, possibly not in that order.

I think they should wait to determine whether the child identifies as cisgender or not. Labeling the baby now puts too much pressure on him/her to conform.

Kate will be relieved when Meaghan takes over the baby factory business.

These poor girls just end up being baby making machines for a bunch of upper class toffs.

That said, no-one forced them to.

Today's the day we scoff at the baby name!

It's almost 2pm there; are they waiting for tea time or what?

£5 on Victor

There are rumors circulating that the baby was born a hermaphrodite. That’s why it’s taking so long to decide.

I would love to see a John, David or wait for it......LUKE!!!!!!!!!

How about Charming? Prince Charming.

The baby name is expected to be announced today.

R535 thanks for that! I shall wear my finest caftan to honor this day.

Well, their really fucking with the news cycle. Are they waiting for BEtty Windsor to make her appearance? Usually she comes on the Third day.

they're

Ralph.

Life imitating art.

Albert is now the favorite. Poor kid.

"Al" reminds me of a plumber, or a mechanic.

It's 6:51PM in London right now. If they would have announced it today, they already would have.

I don't know why they're waiting so long.

why all these different names all of a sudden? where are they getting it from? Maybe they are testing out who the leakers are!

[quote]R542 I don't know why they're waiting so long.

Everything is run by Our Sparkle now. She is weighing additional options.

So he’ll be called Bertie?

I think they are tryin g to get approval for "Thomas", as a way to honor Meghan and welcome her to the family.

It is the only explanation for the delay.

I still like Nicholas.

Huh? What does the name "Thomas" have to do with Meghan?

My father's name was Albert; he always said that he hated his name.

But he was an Italian-American, so he was called Al, never Bertie.

I really hope R546 is just pretending to be this stupid.

R548 It is her father's name. Ask anyone.

[italic] People Have Spoken.

^^ THE People

does william like star wars or star trek? gotta be from one of those movies.

this is a third child, it will be a fun name, not a traditional one!

oh my, i bet it's elton. what music do they like?

just googled, prince william likes coldplay and linkin park.

[quote]R547 I still like Nicholas.

Nicholas brings to mind that lame, virulently anti-semitic czar...who the Windsors abandoned to his assassination.

So maybe not the warmest associations for them.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

A page at www.royal.uk/prince-albert reads Access Denied - which is the same message that greets visitors trying to visit that page or those of the newborn's siblings.

I hope not. Maybe it's a feint. Maybe William is trying to make some money off the betting. He'll likely announce the name is Aethulwulf.

Mordred

Why is Prince Harry called that and not his real, given name, Henry? Even his official Palace bio pages lists him as Prince Harry.

[quote] Yes but Anne wasn't made PR until she was an adult. She might pass away before Charlotte becomes of age.

Charlotte cannot be Princess Royal until both Anne dies and William inherits the throne. It is a title for life, only one person can hold it at a time, and it can only be given to the eldest daughter of the current monarch.

I was hoping they'd throw everyone off and come up with a name no one was expecting (but still "respectable" of course).

Christopher. Pretty unique among princes.

Aaron. Or the Welsh Aeron.

Francis. Oh the humanity!

Louis??

It's Albert. For certain. R557/ R558 cracked it -- the Palace page for Prince Albert is reserved, none of the other possible names are.

Louis Francis. Then he and George can regularly fistfight to represent the special historic relationship between England and France.

The website thing is a pretty solid clue, but does anyone know how long that's been reserved? I could imagine that being protected since the first day of the internet to prevent people from doing exactly what you'd expect them to do with an "official" Prince Albert webpage.

I prefer Chauncey Primbottom

R567 doubtful. It's not been archived in Wayback Machine internet archive and it has been crawled since 2016.

It's Albert. 100%.

So King George VI gets honored twice by the Cambridges? Damn, QEII is not playing.

They'll call him "Albie" for short

William says that they're still working on the baby's name so there may not be an announcement today.

If I'm not mistaken didn't they wait until the Queen sees the baby before announcing his name?

Lancelot

George and Albert are horrible names. I'm not sure if there is an uglier male name than 'Albert'. Is the Queen forcing them to give their children horrible ugly names just because she can?

R575 I dunno, "Stanley" is pretty ugly too.

And Rodney, Franklin, etc etc

I like George. It's one of those old-fashioned names that's more elegant than stuffy. (Such as Charlotte.)

Albert is pretty awful though. So the heir and the spare got the good classic names and the extra got the outdated ugly name.

I personally hate the name Albert but whatever.

it's like 9 PM over there in the UK and still no announcement? It was supposed to be today. Why the delay.

^because Kate is pleading to William to not name the poor baby Albert

Wiiliam and Harry did some event today.

I'll never have kids but if I did, I'd name them Sebastian and Dominic.

[quote]George and Albert are horrible names. I'm not sure if there is an uglier male name than 'Albert'. Is the Queen forcing them to give their children horrible ugly names just because she can?

I told you, they have to use Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsor family names. Now, at long last, in the dwindling hours before th reveal, you see I was right all along.

good lord, r582 talks like he thinks he's Cassandra and Agamemnon is about to be stabbed in the bath.

Thank you.

Albert is a horrible name - over in England they tend to call people with that name Bertie. Good God in heaven, name the kid Alexander or James

RELEASE THE FUCKING NAME!!!!

Alexander, please.

Prince Alex is good. Or Prince Alec.

Prince Albert??? They wouldn't be so stupid, would they?

They gon' name that baby "Li'l Stinkeroo!" Sho' nuff!

Obviously, there is a hold up.

Yes r589, it’s Kate grabbing Williams polo shirt and saying “man up and go and tell your grandmother why we can’t use Albert! She won’t have you beheaded you pussy. Just bloody well tell her”

Maybe the hold up is Prince Philip! He insists the newborn be his namesake. The Queen wants Albert. (She still has a father fixation.) Kate wants Zachary or some more modern name. William just wants to go play polo. What's the name of his polo horse?

That hosses' name is "Big Stinkeroo."

Well now a whole new generation of kids can prank call and ask if they have Prince Albert in a can.

Why the hell are the British Royals locked into using all these FUG NAMES to name their children? Princess Anne named her kids what she wanted, and I'm sure she asked no one for permission (Don't fuck with her 'cause she'll kick ya ass!) "Zara" was pretty radical for a grandchild of the Queen in late 1970's. If I was Willy, I'd break that shit down and tell 'em all that I name my child what IIIIIII want to name him. Me to the Queen: "You can call him Albert if you want to, but I'm naming him "Pookie!"

here is a list of the full names, all four of them, for Charles, WIlliam, Harry, Andrew and Edward:

Charles Philip Arthur George

Andrew Albert Christian Edward

Edward Antony Richard Louis

WIlliam Arthur Philip Louis

Henry Charles Albert David

British Royal Family names remind me of the menu at Taco Bell. Everything contains the same six ingredients, just arranged differently.

I think Jonathan would be nice.

Or Aethelred.

William and Henry are the only truely nice names in the bunch. Christian is ok, but it’s the name of the Prince (and future king) of Denmark so that’s out. Everything else is either stuffy or just plain ugly as all get out. It’s too bad they used Alexander as George’s middle name because that’s nice too.

"Beatrice" and "Eugenie" - ain't that some SHIT?!!

Aethelred! Aethelred!

Hoping for Prince Richard