BS: The Royal Wedding/baby

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 09:45 AM

Well said, Musket. The stuff they have to go through is pretty sad.

Nobody makes a fuss like this when one of my budgies lays a clutch of eggs...not even when the eggs hatch...and it's probably a good thing. Too much bother can cause a little bird to have heart failure just from the stress.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 05:24 PM

It's a little prince!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 06:32 PM

The only two things that are remotely of any interest to me are that the constitutional issue of succession/gender won't be a subject for discussion for at least the next 20 years, and that as far as I am aware this is the first time in history that for generations in line for the throne have been alive at the same time, and it is unlikely to happen again for a generation or so.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 07:06 PM

I think he should be named Dwight, Bruce, or Lance. They would all be Kingly Names.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 07:20 PM

or Rex ---- having Rex Rex on coinage woold appeal to me but I doubt if I would have to live well into my hundreds to see that

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 08:54 PM

Whatever the baby gets called isn't liable to be the name he uses as king. Charles has said he intends to be known as George VII as king, George VI was known as Bertie, and Edward VIII was known as David. Elizabeth is a bit of an exception.

People yearning for a Republic in England are on a loser. The thing is, getting rid of the monarchy without any other more significant cganges would be pretty futile. Perhaps in Sctland where there is more possibility of real changes.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: gnu
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 09:47 PM

Rap... what about Shane 0.I?

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 11:03 PM

Chongo. King Chongo the Oneth.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 12:11 AM

King Shane the First would be absolutely awesome!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 01:40 AM

I rather favour Clint - it has a strong, manly sound to it.
King Clint the First - that one's difficult to beat, IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 02:01 AM

A monarch isn't called "The First" until a Second of the same name comes along, though. We didn't talk of Elizabeth I, but just of Queen Elizabeth, until the present incumbent's reign began. Queen Anne is just that, not Anne I, likewise King John, because there has never been a second of either.

~M~ The one and only...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: Acorn4
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 04:13 AM

I think Tarquin or Atlantis would be good, or even Moonchild!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: banjoman
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 06:07 AM

Is anyone else sick and tired of the excessive media coverage of what is a normal daily event. The "Royal" baby is one of 2,500 born in the UK yesterday. The birth of any baby is an event to celebrate, but give us a break. I estimated that yesterday the BBC alone had at least 5 camera crews and at least 20 reporters from all over the country. I expect ITV did similar. No wonder they are trying to increase the TV Licence fee. Leave them alone to celebrate as a family please.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 06:42 AM

"Is anyone else sick and tired of the excessive media coverage of what is a normal daily event."

I had no idea that there was a baby till I opened Mudcat..
Ahh, the peaceful bliss of being TV-free!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 06:53 AM

Monarchies are blasphemies - the only one born to rule is a prophet of God; or, in verse, via Google's Blogspot, Poem 225 of 230: AFTER PSALM 118:9 AND MATTHEW 4:8-10 - http://walkaboutsverse.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/walkaboutsverse-225-of-230.html

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: GUEST,King Clint the First
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 07:08 AM

Well, it makes a very pleasant change from nutters hacking off-duty soldiers to death, or X-Factor bullshite, or who Liam Gallagher's been giving the mutton dagger to, or any number of shitty topics that the meedja insist on ramming down our throats ad nauseam. IMHO. YMMV.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: s&r
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 08:04 AM

WAV that's a sour and rude little post.

I wish the family well. They're the prisoner of circumstance as are you.

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: Will Fly
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 08:05 AM

He should be called Crimson. His time will come...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: GUEST,King Clint the First
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 08:23 AM

LOL Will!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 08:30 AM

Irrespective of what WAV may think, monarchies are NOT blasphemies. Christ recognised temporal authorities:
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 08:34 AM

A little bird told me that the baby will be named Barack. You heard it here first.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: treewind
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 09:13 AM

Bill Kennedy appears to be ignorant of the long established tradition in the British aristocracy that the wife's first duty is to bear her husband a son*, who will inherit the family fortune and his name. Once that duty has been fulfilled, it's always been open season on both partners as long as they are reasonably discreet about it.

It matters not who Prince Andrew's father is, nor Harry's.
Look at the first sons: Charles and William's fathers are who they are supposed to be, and it's a fairly safe bet on this occasion that the new Royal baby is William's too.

*presumably it doesn't have to be a son now; if a daughter is good enough for Royal accession, she's good enough for inheritance of the family fortune too.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: GUEST,Musket tries again..
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 11:05 AM

WAV. One small problem.

We all accept that as pack animals, we traditionally have someone to open factories and monuments, get first pick of the kill etc.

Well, the royal family exist. I've met a couple of them, and it wasn't in a dream. God however only exists in the minds of those who want or need a god. So how the flying can it be blasphemous when God only applies to the minority who are religious?


10/1 George
50/1 Henry
Evens Wayne
2/1 on Colin

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 11:55 AM

Maternal grandfather -- Michael.

Just saying...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: Jim McLean
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 12:20 PM

As they say in Scotland: Ah dinnae care whit they ca' it as long as they dinnae ca' it owner a dyke.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 12:33 PM

Or the English version, as quoted by Evelyn Waugh, I doesn't matter what they call you so long as they don't call you 'pigeon pie' and eat you up.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 12:53 PM

Charles seems a reasonable bet. We haven't had one for a while.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 12:53 PM

"IT doesn't...", bugger it

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: Acorn4
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 02:02 PM

I'm still banking on Cyril.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 02:19 PM

Perhaps they will name the child "Wilfred". If they do, Wifred Pennifere will finally feel that his life has been justified.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 02:43 PM

My dear sister-in-law Hazara is about to give birth in Ivory Coast. She's walking about in 40 degrees heat and enormous humidity, still carrying market produce on her head to sell at her stall, having walked quite far to buy the stuff she sells. She'll have her baby with practically no medical help, and probably hasn't eaten all that well during her pregnancy. We send what we can afford to help her, but it isn't much I'm afraid. My point is that there are millions of little ones born in the world disadvantaged from the start, in war, famine, disease and poverty. I wish William, Catherine and Baby Cambridge well of course, but that baby will have everything possible for his needs. I'm more concerned about all the others.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 04:14 PM

"if a daughter is good enough for Royal accession, she's good enough for inheritance of the family fortune too"

No the aristos have not changed. My wife works a couple of days a week for one prominent family and when the father dies the title etc and family seat goes to his nephew rather than his daughter. Still the way of things.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 11:43 PM

Well, here's a little list of names I feel appropriate:

Hans
Vito
Amos
Zebadiah
Nicodemus
Tatonka Yotonka
Jed
Sebastian
Timothy
Dumnguallaun
Cadwallon
Cináed Ciarrge
Áengus Goibnenn
Fergus
Fingal
Liudolf
Tȟašúŋke Witkó
Mangas Coloradas
Cochise
Victorio
Geronimo
Essa-queta
Nana

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 03:49 AM

I'm not sure I understand Rap's list.

My choices would be:
(for a boy) Bowler Brown.
(for a girl) Barbara

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 04:08 AM

Not only do I not understand it either; but I fail to see the slightest point in any of these silly suggestions & speculations. Why are you all doing it, please? I get your puns on Windsor, Nigel; but it is all a bit desperate for a laugh, eh?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 02:10 PM

Bing - because King Bing sounds good, or for the Prince - how about Vince!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 02:36 PM

Well, it's George Alexander Louis. Nice traditional names.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 02:43 PM

It is difficult to avoid despair sometimes. A (UK born and educated) receptionist said to my daughter yesterday: "George would be nice. We've never had a George."

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: GUEST,Musket cashing in
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 03:10 PM

You may note from above I was offering 10/1 on George. Nobody took me up on it. Not even real people in the office or in the pub.

I however laid my bets off ready and within the hour, £350.00 or thereabouts from a £20.00 + tax outlay will hit my bank account via Messrs W Hill.

Gawd bless 'em!

Royal family are good for prosperity after all. Mine anyroad....

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 04:18 PM

The drinks are on Musket!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: Little Robyn
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 05:39 PM

But have they thought about his initials?
George Alexander Louis - GAL!
Little Prince Gal!

At least, the Geordies should be happy.
Robyn

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 05:42 PM

Is anyone else like me? I tend to form an opinion of a name according to people I've met with the same name. When I was little, we had a lovely greengrocer called George. He was a genuine Cockney, fat and red-faced, and talked about "A pahnd of sprahts." He wore a brown dustcoat over his fat tum. His wife was (of course) Gladys, called Glad and their surname was Perkins. Almost too good to be true, but it was. So this Royal baby will make me smile when I remember George Perkins.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 06:04 PM

It pains me to think of the kingdom that George VII is destined to rule over.If present trends continue, that kingdom will consist of a bleak, sterile island covered in bricks, concrete and tarmac and experiencing increasingly erratic weather and extreme weather events. An island riven by bloody conflict as various groups and factions fight over dwindling resources and besieged by desperate people, from elsewhere on the planet, whose plight is even worse than that of the people of the island. A living Hell! I doubt if there will be many more kings after him - perhaps he'll be our last King.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 06:08 PM

Oh dear Shimrod, surely not. What a gloomy prognosis! Trends don't usually continue, things change and often for the better. Don't despair, our country will be alright.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 03:36 AM

Let's hope you're right, Eliza. But things are not looking good. Every reputable climate scientist is saying that climate change represents a dire threat with biodiversity loss not far behind. And our present government is using the current economic crisis as an excuse to accelerate the rate of environmental destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 08:07 AM

If Charles adopts the name George if/when he comes to the throne, that would make him George VII and George, George VIII

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 12:44 PM

I suggested Hezekiah and Hepzibah but they were rejected.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: Jim McLean
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 01:01 PM

All together now .... "Wha the de'il ha'e we gotten for a king, but a wee, wee, German Lairdie ... "

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: PHJim
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 06:54 PM

I knew it'd be either George, Paul, John or Ringo. I was kinda hoping for Ringo. "King Ringo" has a nice ring to it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding/baby
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 26 Jul 13 - 12:03 AM

I bear no ill will against England or any other country of the British Isles, but as a Canadian I demand that the monarchy expire with the death of the prescent queen as ruler of Canada! It is past time to move on!