Royal Baby in UK

[AnthonyAthletic]

.

"I was not invited, I just crashed the party," he told Yahoo. I got out of my cab and I stood in front of the steps, because I didn't think I would be allowed on them, and did my bit. It was great. It was a great atmosphere, it's like the Olympics."

Read this on AOL, although he is a Town Crier....he just turned up without an invite.  Imagine all those Snipers and SAS milling around the crowd and in buildings thinking, yeah he's cool...take the bead off him 

[Karl Henning]

Great uniform. I'd wear it.

I noticed that one British member of the public interviewed about the naming of the royal baby pointed out that 'Louis sounds a bit French' with evident disapproval.

I wondered if such a comment was not borderline-inevitable.  And in the US, of course, a fringe, xenophobic comment would almost inevitably be captured by some half-wit newshound.  Sorry that he seems to be spending time over by you folks.

[vandermolen]

By the way, my intention is that this thread will run at least until 'King George VIII' (as I suspect he will be) ascends to the throne in about 70 years time. I will be renaming it 'Royal Toddler'' 'Royal Adolescent' etc in due course, as it is clear that the GMG Forum is full of overt and closet royalists. 

[springrite]

By the way, my intention is that this thread will run at least until 'King George VIII' (as I suspect he will be) ascends to the throne in about 70 years time. I will be renaming it 'Royal Toddler'' 'Royal Adolescent' etc in due course, as it is clear that the GMG Forum is full of overt and closet royalists. 

Don't forget "Royal Pain in the Ass"

[Florestan]

it is clear that the GMG Forum is full of overt and closet royalists. 

Well, there is at least one overt royalist: myself. God save Georgie Lexie Louie, grand-nephew (or is it grand-grand?...!  of HM King Michael I of Romania!

[Karl Henning]

Kimi, Papa didn't mean it like that....

[vandermolen]

Don't forget "Royal Pain in the Ass"

Excellent point but Karl is right too. 

[vandermolen]

Well, there is at least one overt royalist: myself. God save Georgie Lexie Louie, grand-nephew (or is it grand-grand?...!  of HM King Michael I of Romania!

Delighted to see Romanian connection to Royal Babyfest.

[douglasofdorset]

I noticed that one British member of the public interviewed about the naming of the royal baby pointed out that 'Louis sounds a bit French' with evident disapproval.

It may be superfluous to point out, but 'Louis' is of course the name of Lord Mountbatten (originally 'Battenberg', after the cake), uncle of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and often described as Prince Charles' 'mentor'.  He was conspicuously brave (on our side!) in WW2, and continued to be an important member of the Royal Family until he was blown up in 1979 by the Provisional IRA.

[vandermolen]

It may be superfluous to point out, but 'Louis' is of course the name of Lord Mountbatten (originally 'Battenburg', after the cake), uncle of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and often described as Prince Charles' 'mentor'.  He was conspicuously brave (on our side!) in WW2, and continued to be an important member of the Royal Family until he was blown up in 1979 by the Provisional IRA.

Oh yes, I have no doubt that this is the rationale behind the name. I recall the assassination of Mountbatten very clearly.

[Karl Henning]

It may be superfluous to point out, but 'Louis' is of course the name of Lord Mountbatten (originally 'Battenburg', after the cake), uncle of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and often described as Prince Charles' 'mentor'.  He was conspicuously brave (on our side!) in WW2, and continued to be an important member of the Royal Family until he was blown up in 1979 by the Provisional IRA.

Not at all superfluous to us here in the US; I had no notion.

[kishnevi]

Not at all superfluous to us here in the US; I had no notion.

I knew it but had clean forgotten about the connection.   Lord Mountbatten was apparently an important figure in Prince Charles's life, almost a father figure by some of the accounts I've read.   Modern historians seem to be revising their opinion of Mountbatten in WWII rather downward, as someone with outrageous and implausible ideas (he was responsible, IIRC, for the suggestion that air craft carriers be made out of ice, for service in a possible invasion of Norway, on the theory that they would be less suspectible to torpedoes and such, and not melt in Artic waters.  A model was tested in a bathtub with almost fatal results to some of the onlookers because of a ricocheting bullet.)  The revisionists view him as a person who had a great talent for self promotion, and being around when Britons needed someone to act heroically, although most of his heroics involved having a ship sunk under him.  His finest hour was not WWII, but his role as last viceroy and first governor general of India,  when he was handed a nearly impossible job and probably did as good as anyone could have done in the circumstance.  Had he not done was well as he did,  Indian independence would have been a greater mess than it turned out to be.

If Charles had input into the name, then "George" might be both a tribute to this baby's great great grandfather (George VI) and to the last king of the thirteen American colonies (George III).

By my count, unless one of them picks a different name on accession or doesn't end up on the throne at all,  the presumptive future kings will be Charles III, William V, and George VII.

[Parsifal]

Not at all superfluous to us here in the US; I had no notion.

Actually, to a lot of us in the US, it is superfluous. 

[runs away]

[vandermolen]

I knew it but had clean forgotten about the connection.   Lord Mountbatten was apparently an important figure in Prince Charles's life, almost a father figure by some of the accounts I've read.   Modern historians seem to be revising their opinion of Mountbatten in WWII rather downward, as someone with outrageous and implausible ideas (he was responsible, IIRC, for the suggestion that air craft carriers be made out of ice, for service in a possible invasion of Norway, on the theory that they would be less suspectible to torpedoes and such, and not melt in Artic waters.  A model was tested in a bathtub with almost fatal results to some of the onlookers because of a ricocheting bullet.)  The revisionists view him as a person who had a great talent for self promotion, and being around when Britons needed someone to act heroically, although most of his heroics involved having a ship sunk under him.  His finest hour was not WWII, but his role as last viceroy and first governor general of India,  when he was handed a nearly impossible job and probably did as good as anyone could have done in the circumstance.  Had he not done was well as he did,  Indian independence would have been a greater mess than it turned out to be.

If Charles had input into the name, then "George" might be both a tribute to this baby's great great grandfather (George VI) and to the last king of the thirteen American colonies (George III).

By my count, unless one of them picks a different name on accession or doesn't end up on the throne at all,  the presumptive future kings will be Charles III, William V, and George VII.

I think that Mountbatten's wife had an affair with Nehru.

I suspect that Charles will take the title George VII, William will be William V and the baby prince will be George VIII. The first Charles had his head chopped off and the second one was chasing a bluebottle round the palace whilst the Dutch were threatening to invade, so the name Charles does not have happy associations for the Royal Family.

[MishaK]

Had he not done was well as he did,  Indian independence would have been a greater mess than it turned out to be.

Worse than a continuing standoff between two impoverished nuclear powers with tenuous control over their arsenals?

[kishnevi]

I think that Mountbatten's wife had an affair with Nehru.

General view is that Mountbatten knew and condoned.  In fact, he may have come close to shoving them into bed together,  just to make sure Nehru stayed friendly.

I suspect that Charles will take the title George VII, William will be William V and the baby prince will be George VIII. The first Charles had his head chopped off and the second one was chasing a bluebottle round the palace whilst the Dutch were threatening to invade, so the name Charles does not have happy associations for the Royal Family.

Charles I and Charles II must have better images among Americans than English,  I'm guessing.  We tend to think of Charles II as the guy who let people celebrate Christmas again,  let women become actresses, trotted around cheering on the fire brigades during the Great Fire and had plenty of fun with plenty of mistresses.  The CryptoCatholic  French pensioner who wanted to rule as autocrat but was usually afraid to face down Parliament side of him is not well known,  perhaps.   But he was actually (in terms of final result) the most successful of the early Stuarts--his policies didn't get knocked to pieces by reality as happened to James I, and he died on his throne and in his bed, unlike his father and brother.  Had James II been content to follow his policies there's a good chance that the Glorious Revolution would never have happened.   Unlike all the other Stuarts,  Charles II knew how limited his powers were in reality, and was not afraid to lie, steal and cheat to get what he wanted.  (There's even a theory that he was behind Captain Blood's theft of some of the Crown Jewels--in that theory, he was trying to keep people from knowing how deeply in debt he was, and that some of the Crown Jewels were actually in pawn at the time of the theft.) 

[kishnevi]

Worse than a continuing standoff between two impoverished nuclear powers with tenuous control over their arsenals?

Worse in that the massacres, riots, killings and floods of refugees that accompany ethnic cleansing, and which accompanied the partition between India and Pakistan, as Hindus fled to India from what is now Pakistan, and Moslems fled to Pakistan from what is now India, would have been even worse than they were--which was bad enough,  I don't remember the figures, but I think the number of dead was in the six figure range, and the number of refugees in the eight or nine figure range. 

No doubt Navneeth can speak better on this point than either of us.

[Mirror Image]

Jason Alexanders, aka George Louis Costanza, thinks the prince may be named after him.

Corrected.

[vandermolen]

General view is that Mountbatten knew and condoned.  In fact, he may have come close to shoving them into bed together,  just to make sure Nehru stayed friendly.
Charles I and Charles II must have better images among Americans than English,  I'm guessing.  We tend to think of Charles II as the guy who let people celebrate Christmas again,  let women become actresses, trotted around cheering on the fire brigades during the Great Fire and had plenty of fun with plenty of mistresses.  The CryptoCatholic  French pensioner who wanted to rule as autocrat but was usually afraid to face down Parliament side of him is not well known,  perhaps.   But he was actually (in terms of final result) the most successful of the early Stuarts--his policies didn't get knocked to pieces by reality as happened to James I, and he died on his throne and in his bed, unlike his father and brother.  Had James II been content to follow his policies there's a good chance that the Glorious Revolution would never have happened.   Unlike all the other Stuarts,  Charles II knew how limited his powers were in reality, and was not afraid to lie, steal and cheat to get what he wanted.  (There's even a theory that he was behind Captain Blood's theft of some of the Crown Jewels--in that theory, he was trying to keep people from knowing how deeply in debt he was, and that some of the Crown Jewels were actually in pawn at the time of the theft.)

You are right about Charles II, I was being too flippant.

[Florestan]

Delighted to see Romanian connection to Royal Babyfest.

HM Kng Michael (Mihai) I of Romania is a great-great-grandson of Queen Victoria through both of his parents, and a third cousin of Queen Elizabeth II. He is the last surviving monarch from the Interbellum and one of only two surviving heads of state from World War II, the other being Simeon II of Bulgaria.

I really don't understand all this hatred against, and bashing of, monarchy and monarchs, especially when it comes from people who are not citizens of a monarchic country...