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

WillyGalore

I wouldn't say I don't entirely give a damn, but James would be nice for obvious reasons ;)

Ludovico

Arthur like king Arthur. Might as well. I'm republican so don't really care, I found the way media cover the royal family here in the UK utterly sycophantic.

Perdogg

I would like Edward or George.

Dragonpol

Henry sounds quite regal to me.

WillyGalore

Actually does anyone else think 'Of Persia' would be a real cool name?

WillyGalore

Ludovico wrote:

Arthur like king Arthur. Might as well. I'm republican so don't really care, I found the way media cover the royal family here in the UK utterly sycophantic.

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

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

Dragonpol

WillyGalore wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Arthur like king Arthur. Might as well. I'm republican so don't really care, I found the way media cover the royal family here in the UK utterly sycophantic.

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

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

I'm actually a monarchist, but I have to agree here. I think we in Britain go mad at very little encouragement these days. We clearly live in post-Princess Diana times.

Ludovico

WillyGalore wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Arthur like king Arthur. Might as well. I'm republican so don't really care, I found the way media cover the royal family here in the UK utterly sycophantic.

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

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

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

steven88

Jaws :P

Dragonpol

steven88 wrote:

Jaws :P

Really? Must have started teething early, then.

Samuel001

Jacob. Pick something fresh and new.

WillyGalore

Ludovico wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Arthur like king Arthur. Might as well. I'm republican so don't really care, I found the way media cover the royal family here in the UK utterly sycophantic.

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

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

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

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

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

Dragonpol

WillyGalore wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Arthur like king Arthur. Might as well. I'm republican so don't really care, I found the way media cover the royal family here in the UK utterly sycophantic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

WillyGalore

Dragonpol wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Arthur like king Arthur. Might as well. I'm republican so don't really care, I found the way media cover the royal family here in the UK utterly sycophantic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I put a post on my Facebook page yesterday

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

You wouldn't believe the stick I got for it

;)

Dragonpol

WillyGalore wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Arthur like king Arthur. Might as well. I'm republican so don't really care, I found the way media cover the royal family here in the UK utterly sycophantic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I put a post on my Facebook page yesterday

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

You wouldn't believe the stick I got for it

;)

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

WillyGalore

Dragonpol wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Arthur like king Arthur. Might as well. I'm republican so don't really care, I found the way media cover the royal family here in the UK utterly sycophantic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I put a post on my Facebook page yesterday

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

You wouldn't believe the stick I got for it

;)

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

Should I be suing them for plagiarism?

Dragonpol

WillyGalore wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Arthur like king Arthur. Might as well. I'm republican so don't really care, I found the way media cover the royal family here in the UK utterly sycophantic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I put a post on my Facebook page yesterday

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

You wouldn't believe the stick I got for it

;)

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

Should I be suing them for plagiarism?

Probably, but they get enough people suing them for libel already, I'd imagine!

doubleoego

Peregrine James Carruthers Windsor.

Dragonpol

doubleoego wrote:

Peregrine James Carruthers Windsor.

Sounds about right, by way of Bulldog Drummond.

Perdogg

How about Joffrey?

4EverBonded

I enjoy reading about the royal family, but I do not live in England and am not saturated with it.

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

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

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

WillyGalore

4EverBonded wrote:

I enjoy reading about the royal family, but I do not live in England and am not saturated with it.

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

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

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

Prince Albert has a different meaning in England ;-)

4EverBonded

Well, I didn't really want it as a first name. I think the queen would appreciate it being there somewhere in the 3 or 4 names this baby will probably get.

Gerard

I like Arthur as well. At least, we know he will not be called John.

And congrats to the parents.

echo

Skyfall.

Agent007391

WillyGalore wrote:

Actually does anyone else think 'Of Persia' would be a real cool name?

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

AgentCalibos

Sir Crapsalot

CraterGuns

What Should Be The New Royal Baby's Name?

Napoleon.

WillyGalore

Agent007391 wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

Actually does anyone else think 'Of Persia' would be a real cool name?

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

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

Kong

RogueAgent

I am a proud Brit and I like the Royals. But? The amount of coverage the media and press have given it really unbelievable when you think of what else is going on in the world. I think if they want to capitalise on the whole Britishness of things? Go for King Arthur for the distant future! <:-P

M_Balje

Atleast 2 other people are happy with the name