Just something away from Rugby

As far as I know, he was named George after his great grandaddy George who was also known as Bertie ... the same dude depicted in the movie "The King's Speech"

The only traditions in naming the Royals are that one of the names is of a previous King/Queen and one or more of the father's names (if it is boy). The new prince is George Alexander Louis. There were a number of Kings named George, including the Queen's father, like CC has said. Louis is one of Prince William's names and I have read somewhere that Alexander is just a name that both William and Kate liked.

Prince William is William (King William IV) Arthur Philip Louis.

Prince Charles is Charles Philip Arthur George.

There is no royal protocol in deciding the name of any royal or heir to the throne.

The Mail understands that William and Kate had already decided by the time they introduced the Queen to her heir – and third great-grandchild – at Kensington Palace yesterday morning.

There is no royal protocol which dictates the sovereign must be given approval, but it is believed the couple discussed their choice with her during their 30-minute meeting.

It is likely the Queen will have been thrilled by the choice of name, given that her father was George VI. He was christened Albert and was known to his family as Bertie, but monarchs are allowed to pick a name under which to rule.

Louis, the baby’s third name, is William’s fourth name – he is William Arthur Philip Louis. It was chosen by Charles as a tribute to his close friend and mentor, Lord Louis Mountbatten, the Duke of Edinburgh’s uncle. He was assassinated by the IRA in August 1979 when his boat was blown up on a fishing trip off the coast of Ireland.

This is popular in Scotland, where Alexander III was regarded as one of the country's greatest rulers.

Whatever............

George has always been the name that Prince Charles will allegedly rule under should that time come, given Monarchs choose whatever name they see fit as their ruling name.

Our present Queen was asked if she would like to choose a different name when she was being prepared for her Coronation and, rightly, declined.

Charles is seen as an unfortunate name for a King, John is also not a popular choice for an heir to the throne and the Queen is actually said to have vetoed the name Theodore for one of the babies born to a member of the Royal Family in recent years, so she can intervene. And I suppose she would have in this instance, if they had wanted to call him something as ridiculous, like Brooklyn :) 

George was the name our current Queen's father ruled under, being his fourth name, if memory serves. His name was Albert, hence him being known as Bertie by his family. No King is allowed to rule under the name of Albert since Queen Victoria decreed that, if her husband could not be King Albert alongside her, there could be no future King Albert. This has stood as Royal Protocol thereafter and continues to do so.

This child has been named with names his parents liked, according to them, no other reason. William is called Louis as his fourth name, but this child has very few for a Royal Prince. One would have expected at least 4 ! He's got off lightly indeed...he could have had 7.

I have to admit that I was also abit surprised that he only has three names, but it think it could be due to William, and obviously Kate's, idea to have him brought up "more normal" so to speak. William has indeed had the example of his mother who tried the same thing and took him and Harry to help in soup kitchen's, etc. I think that there is a real sense of trying to strike a balance, between being a royal and a normal human being, by Prince William and even Prince Harry, hence their involvement in various charities and charitable organisations and instititions.

I think it's a bit of a fallacy that it was Diana that involved the Royal Family in Charities !

Look at how long things like the Princes Trust have been going and many more.

It was just that they kept themselves rather more low-key.

Part of being a Royal is to be a Patron of X amount of Charities and you have to fulfil those duties every year, come what may. That has been a part of Royal life for Centuries...Poor Schools/Patronages. Let's face it, there wouldn't have been certain famous prestigious Colleges without the Charitable Patronage of a certain King Henry VIII. Nor would there have been Scholarships or Music Schools.

Charity from the Royal family has existed on many levels over the Centuries and in many different ways. The Charities Commission can show lists of who is Patron of their Charity and who attends officially at their events, but we all know they like to attend un-officially. Even senior figures.

The Queen was also advised, I believe in the 1960's, possibly early 1970's, to allow the tv cameras in to make the Royal Family seem more accessible to the public. This they did. You can look it up if you don't believe me. It was before my time, but I've seen some of it. As far as I'm concerned, it was a disaster.

Yes, be a bit more " normal " but don't try and be " one of us " or there is no point in having a Monarchy at all....

Should have been Harry jr after his father, cause I mean c'mon William just hasn't got it in em lol.

-

It's funny that you never hear about it in the UK but Harry sooo isn't Charles kid how they keep a lid on this shit I'll never know.

I do agree that thyey are all involved in various charities, but I do not know of many who have been as involved as William and Harry. I have seen a program, while still in SA, wbout Harry's work in Lesotho, where he was laying bricks and building houses, etc. He goes back and help them on a regular basis. Diana often took them to variuos shelters and clinics to winess and help with HIV/AIDS sufferers.

Harry, in fact, is the co-founder of Sentebale with Prince Seeiso of Lesotho.

www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch

Many share that view, Bluebok. Me personally? I quite like the Royals. I would not jump around and buy every book and piece of novelty that I can get my hands on, but it is a big part of the British cultural history, and to be honest, I am at times quite envious of the cultural history of Brittain, and many European countries for that matter. What do we as South Africans have after all? Our history is full of wars and fights and hatred amongst each other, etc, etc.

I am envious when I go into the museum at Reading and witness the rich history of a "boring" place like Reading. The place was once the pinacle of the English cloth trade. There were major battles fought in and around the place as early as 871. The same goes for virtually every town in the UK.

I had the opportunity to stay over at Lewtrenchard Manor in West Devon. It is a country hotel in the true sense of the word. Being curious as I am, I started looking around in the library and discovered that the manor actually belonged to the Barings at some stage and that Sabine Baring-Gould once lived there as well. He was an Angican priest at the little church that exists to this day. His little desk where he used to sit and write down his poems, etc is still in the library/tea room of the manor and I was surprised to learn that he was the person who wrote the very famous hymn "Onward Christian Soldiers" and it was at that very same little desk where he wrote it.

Don't get me wrong. I am a very proud South African, and I am also proud of my own family history, etc, but we have so little, compared to others.

It does not take anything away from the fact that it is a karge part of the British cultural history and unlike what the ANC believe, you cannot just hit alt+ctrl+del and change or get rid of it.

Ah yes, let's just talk about the likes of the French and their tin pot Republics with Presidents who run their countries at far greater excesses than those of a Monarch, shall we ? ! We won't bring America into the equation, that just becomes an embarrassing argument for Republicanism really. Ah well !! Some people never learn !!

And I think, Beeno, that Charity and Royalty has to be looked into further back than that, as I have mentioned, take a look at Henry VIII for example. But it certainly has gone hand in hand with the " job " for a very long time. Maundy Money has been a big thing in the past too...if you can get hold of any of that from the Reigns of the likes of Elizabeth I, then you are very lucky indeed. It's worth quite a bit of money.

And just because William and Harry are involved with African Charities, it doesn't mean they are the only Royals to be involved in Charitable works !! Goodness me, talk about biased !

They are involved in many other Charities across the globe as well, as part of their Royal duties. That's what is expected of them all.

And for the record, Harry's name is Henry. He's called Harry as his pet name.

And the Treason Laws still stand, so I'd watch what you say about parentage and the like. You are all still in our Colonies, right ? ! ;-) ( THIS IS A JOKE !! JUST TO CLARIFY !!!!! ) 

Becs my point about these two guys, and Harry in particular, is this. How many of us are prepared to do what he is doing? Even if we had all the financial backing, how many of us would be prepared to lay bricks and push wheolbarrows with concrete around in the Lesotho mountains? How many would be prepared to go work in the hospitals and clinics where the treat children with HIV/AIDS? Come on. How many of this forum can put their hands up and say that they have done that. And I am not talking for one day or so? That is in addition to bending over backwards to do his part as a soldier in Afghanistan. And then, in addition to that, take part in an expedition to the North Pole with wounded comrades to help create awarness for Help for Heroes.

The thing is that both of them are actively involved in thedifferent causes and not just there for the odd guest appearence or superficial BS for the media.

I agree with Mr Mozart, for all it's worth those people are just highclass beggars.  They are rich beyond knowledge yet there are people dying of hunger and while they live in castles paid for by the populace there are people sleeping in the streets - it is just as big a disgrace as the stealing, robbing, corrupt and morally bankrupt cANCer party in our country.

Being a patron of some charity and rocking up at an event with funfare just so you could make the media headlines and watch people bow at your presence is sick and non productive.  Some folk in that mud island have a bigger fear for the royals than a fear of God but they call themselves christians, nê.

It is an unnessesary evil that whole royal thing with all the funfare and waste of money.  But we read that the population f england is now 18% asian so it will not be long and they will be kicked off the trone and replaced by mohommed's representative. 

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

And there you mud islanders fail the test..no wonder you sing God save the queen.. LOL

 Freddie you sound like an uneducated thick prick......am I right?

That is not what you say when we are alone daddy dearest.  Why are you so worked up, are your tablets finished or have you been steeling my ganja again.  Clearly my education surpasses yours aas I do not need to swear in order to make myself heard.

Lekka, nê

 Ja dom doos

Belgium today is a civilized place, I particularly enjoyed visiting the Magritte museum.

But go back to the late 19 th century under King Leopold, they presided over a slave labour system in the Congo that took the lives of 8 million Congolese by some counts. It was a dark chapter. So much for the notion monarchies cleaned up their act after the French Revolution. Nor would the marchers cut down in St Petersburg describe the last Tsar as benign.

Any system can be abusive if it has no checks and balances. But most modern democracies have strong protections for individual rights. A good constitution, a good legal system and the right to vote in a better government is all that's needed. Monarchies don't add to that.

- And just for the record the USA budget balance as a % of GDP is minus 4.5% ..... considerably better than monarchies like UK at minuus 7.6% .....Japan at minus 8.4%......Spain at minus 7.2 %. - And if you remove defence spending, that a country like Germany leaves largely to others, the US deficit disappears. I wouldn't worry too much about the US, with the explosion in new gas reserves things are set fair. Don't short the dollar for the next ten years.

Actually you are talking about democracy in both cases......an honest democracy with no daddy in the castle....or a democracy which still pays homage to a monarch that has no powers. There is no point unless people just like the sense of some how being looked after by strangers, who have no conception of what their lives are like and no meaningful way of impacting those lives.

 Royal Families are typically just inbreds with children from Cousins or numerous affairs.

It is just a novely having them in England and it was because they were not in power during the industrial revolution that they still exist. The French on the other hand or other neck, all got decapitated. 

Having a dicatorship with one ruler for life is a return to the despotship of the royal family.

Abit like Sadam Hussien until he was found washing his underpants in the sewer.

Whether their role in society is needed or not doesn’t really matter to me.

Having a Royal family in the UK is all part of the attraction to mud island.  

I cannot imagine the UK without their Royal Family.

It’s just not right.

Stiff upper lip and all.

Long may they carry on.

The usa economy is being pumped up by old bernake stimulus but its all being kept afloat by money that is being printed out of thin air. so there are running massive deficits but the real economy is not producing the kind of results that one really want. detroit just recently filed for bankruptcy if i am not mistaken so things are not as it seems. the bond bubble is going burst big time and when i does it will be the biggest financial crisis the world has ever seen. the reserve banks are already busy with currency wars  and alot of countries are already moving away from the dollar standard.

in regards to the royal family if you check there bloodlines basicly all royals are distant family of each other so its no surprise if you look at the naming that there is a massive coincidence in names.

Fuck this thread. Fuck the Queen.

Fuck her offspring family and whatever and fuck England

Why did Kate, Will and George cross the road? Fuck knows!

But the Daily Mail have dedicated their first 30 pages to it.

@Mozart

You need to go out more. The gold standard  have not been used since 1971. You 43 years past your sell by date ya old fart

Gold is not plummeting where did you hear this?