Prince Louis Arthur Charles: British royals William and Kate name their baby

[snoop1130]

Prince Louis Arthur Charles: British royals William and Kate name their baby

 

Britain's Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge and Prince William leave the Lindo Wing of St Mary's Hospital with their new baby boy in London, April 23, 2018. REUTERS/Hannah Mckay/Files

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's Prince William and his wife Kate named their newborn son Louis Arthur Charles.

 

"The baby will be known as His Royal Highness Prince Louis of Cambridge," Kensington Palace said.

 

The prince, who is fifth in line to the British throne, was born at 1001 GMT on April 23. He weighed 8 lbs 7oz at birth.

 

(Reporting by Guy Faulconbridge and Alistair Smout; editing by Stephen Addison)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-04-27

[observer90210]

An extra mouth to fit and feed for the British taxpayers ?!!

[Darcula]

47 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

Britain's Prince William and his wife Kate named their newborn son Louis Arthur Charles.

 

Damn, I had put £10 on Mo Salah.

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

Prince Arthur would have been nice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fish Head Soup]

Prince Albert would have been better. All the old dears 'googling' him would have had a shock!

[overherebc]

13 hours ago, Darcula said:

 

Damn, I had put £10 on Mo Salah.

So nickname at school will be Plac(k)y. 

[Scott]

7 hours ago, Fish Head Soup said:

Prince Albert would have been better. All the old dears 'googling' him would have had a shock!

No need to Google him.   Many of us watched 'The Crown' series on television.  

 

[sammieuk1]

Anyone else on benefits gets ridiculed in the press for endlessly knocking them out.

[BobBKK]

I am English but am totally uninterested and this 'gig' is stoked by the media, for some reason.  Who cares???  Grandma does but surely people have better things to worry about?

 

Anyway why a FRENCH name?  poor old Wellington is rolling in the grave.

Edited April 28, 2018 by BobBKK

[ballpoint]

At least they didn't call him Donald.

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

At least they didn't call him Donald.

If its good enough for the Duck family, its good enough for our royalty.

[ballpoint]

38 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

I am English but am totally uninterested and this 'gig' is stoked by the media, for some reason.  Who cares???  Grandma does but surely people have better things to worry about?

 

Anyway why a FRENCH name?  poor old Wellington is rolling in the grave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Mountbatten,_1st_Earl_Mountbatten_of_Burma

 

[owl sees all]

Louis Arthur Charles Mountbatten or Louis Arthur Charles Battenberg.

 

Simply rolls of the tongue! Where is the spew bucket?

 

Germans boss Europe and UK!

Edited April 28, 2018 by owl sees all

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.  

 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Fish Head Soup said:

Prince Albert would have been better. All the old dears 'googling' him would have had a shock!

I did so.. with image search... Well, now I know. 

[transam]

Arthur would have been a wow, just imagine a possible King Arthur....

[BobBKK]

3 hours ago, ballpoint said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Mountbatten,_1st_Earl_Mountbatten_of_Burma

 

German - even worse!

[colinneil]

What does it matter about his name, just another Royal to add to the growing list of spongers.

[DrTuner]

3 hours ago, colinneil said:

What does it matter about his name, just another Royal to add to the growing list of spongers.

I think at this point they should be able to get enough $ from youtube ads and compete with Kardashians on TV. No sense paying them from taxes. 

 

Monarchies were alright when they were still pillaging each other few centuries ago. Not much relevance today.

[jayboy]

7 hours ago, BobBKK said:

I am English but am totally uninterested and this 'gig' is stoked by the media, for some reason.  Who cares???  Grandma does but surely people have better things to worry about?

 

Anyway why a FRENCH name?  poor old Wellington is rolling in the grave.

Interested enough however to make a heated though rather commonplace intervention.

[jayboy]

8 hours ago, Scott said:

No need to Google him.   Many of us watched 'The Crown' series on television.  

 

I watched the first series and though enjoyed Claire Foy's stellar performance as Elizabeth found it eventually unwatchable.My problem and I suspect one for anyone who knows the period very well was the misrepresentation of historical figures.Can't quite understand it as there were excellent producers, directors and actors and an impressive attention to detail not to mention a massive Netflix budget.Brilliant actors like Jared Harris and John Lithgow were in my opinion miscast, though both fun to watch.I suspect to enjoy it one has to be either ignorant of the period or switch off mental faculties and enjoy a piece of fiction.

[F4UCorsair]

Who cares????????

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Grouse]

I care

 

For those who don't care, bugger off; we don't need your churlish opinions

 

It is good to respect history. One should be aware that the Plantaginate dynasty gave us 14 monarchs over 3 centuries and they were French!

 

In fact Louis has a reasonable claim to the French throne.

 

The Trumps originate from Germany? I'll check.

 

In the meantime the new progeny ensures clear succession. No more usurpation thanks!  

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I care

 

For those who don't care, bugger off; we don't need your churlish opinions

 

It is good to respect history. One should be aware that the Plantaginate dynasty gave us 14 monarchs over 3 centuries and they were French!

 

In fact Louis has a reasonable claim to the French throne.

 

The Trumps originate from Germany? I'll check.

 

In the meantime the new progeny ensures clear succession. No more usurpation thanks!  

Off topic but interesting aside 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_family

 

 

[Scott]

3 hours ago, jayboy said:

I watched the first series and though enjoyed Claire Foy's stellar performance as Elizabeth found it eventually unwatchable.My problem and I suspect one for anyone who knows the period very well was the misrepresentation of historical figures.Can't quite understand it as there were excellent producers, directors and actors and an impressive attention to detail not to mention a massive Netflix budget.Brilliant actors like Jared Harris and John Lithgow were in my opinion miscast, though both fun to watch.I suspect to enjoy it one has to be either ignorant of the period or switch off mental faculties and enjoy a piece of fiction.

I suspect you are older than me.   I really don't remember that period very well!   I did have to read up on the time a little.   Many of the previous royal families are a bit of a jumble in my mind, so they can do pretty much whatever they want as long as they stick roughly to the major events of the time.

 

I very much enjoy keeping an eye on the goings-on with the Royal family and the young Royals.   I want to wish William and Kate the best with the new addition to the family.

 

For those who don't care about it, I suggest watching the Kardashian's.   That might make the Royal family much more enticing and relevant!

 

[evadgib]

103 Guns were fired to mark this birth. Thats one hell of a spectacle and a great boost to tourism and a chance for UK / the English to show off for once without having to feel guilty. 

Bring back the Royal Tournament ?

 

[jayboy]

27 minutes ago, Scott said:

I suspect you are older than me.   I really don't remember that period very well!   I did have to read up on the time a little.   Many of the previous royal families are a bit of a jumble in my mind, so they can do pretty much whatever they want as long as they stick roughly to the major events of the time.

 

I very much enjoy keeping an eye on the goings-on with the Royal family and the young Royals.   I want to wish William and Kate the best with the new addition to the family.

 

For those who don't care about it, I suggest watching the Kardashian's.   That might make the Royal family much more enticing and relevant!

 

I don't think it's really a question of being older.It's more a question of being very familiar with the source material.

[Scott]

1 minute ago, jayboy said:

I don't think it's really a question of being older.It's more a question of being very familiar with the source material.

I was kidding.   I don't think there are too many around that are quite that old!  And yes, the more familiar you are with a subject, the harder it is to see liberties being taken with the story line.

 

[Guest]

English royals, like most of the European royals, are simply monkeys at their country's zoo's. Yes they get free food and nice accommodation, but with the huge cost of their personal freedom of not being able to be themselves. 

 

The same applies to the people who are or wish to become famous. Free food at the zoo. Some folks might enjoy it, but I'm quite sure most would not love to have their every action recorded and scrutinised by the media and general public. 

 

Royalty without absolute power is a glasshouse jail for those unfortunate folks who have the curse of being born with blue blood. 

 

Now.. to become a king with absolute power.. that's a whole different story :)

[jayboy]

10 minutes ago, Scott said:

I was kidding.   I don't think there are too many around that are quite that old!  And yes, the more familiar you are with a subject, the harder it is to see liberties being taken with the story line.

 

Very true.If one reads a newspaper article on a subject one is very familiar with it's astonishing how many mistakes and misunderstandings one finds.Quite worrying given it undermines confidence in all those other articles where one has no previous knowledge!