It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The new baby is a prince. Bets on names? [George Alexander Louis]

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix267
 


Edward, like Snowden...




posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellmutt
 


No, not him! King Edward! I believe there was a King Edward in the past. I'll have to research and see on Wikipedia.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix267
 


Yeah, I know. It's not so long ago either. However, in light of certain recent events, I'll think of Snowden when I hear the name Edward. If they do give him that name, it may also be seen as some form of support for Snowden, I don't know... But it is a King's name



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


I suppose thats a more digestible explanation.

I'm Canadian, and I see your queen on every denomination of change rattling in my pocket. Why? Even better question: why do Canadians even celebrate "victoria day" - what an absolutely pointless and meaningless holiday. As I was telling my brother, I don't think there is another country on earth with a holiday so barren of meaning.

What do you think the future of this "royal family" is? Should they continue lavishing in luxury, doing essentially nothing for a living? And they help keep Brits "rooted" by reminding them of their monarchic past - even though the monarchic system is essentially exploitative and elitist? Sorry, not a good enough explanation to keep this nonsense going.

Even though their power is purely "decorative", it takes a fawning public to keep it going. Or, perhaps the academics are mostly to blame. Why haven't they spoken up? Imagine, for a second, what this ridiculous tradition looks like to an American or Canadian. For no good reason whatsoever, a group of 100 or so people get to live lives of luxury, doing essentially nothing. And, if not being deserved is bad enough, they're given pretentious titles like "queen", "king", "prince", "princess", "duchess", "duke"; your very parliamentary system uses the appellative "Lord" to refer to a prominent member. Besides being gaudy, the emotional connotations of such words wreaks of classism.

So, I'm simply curious, how can a liberal society with a seemingly socialistic bent harbor within it's very bowels such wanton self entitlement - as the monarchic "mascots" represent?

To just reiterate, mascots shouldn't get to not work, enjoy month long vacations on million dollar yachts in the Mediterranean. And "mascots" - even the glorified kind - don't deserve this mindless adulation of the masses.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Astrocyte
 


Because Canadians are subjects of the Crown. The Queen of England is your Head of State when she is in Canada.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Astrocyte
 


I wouldn't be a royal, not even with all the good things that come with it. They are our slaves, the queen doesn't decide what she has to do in the morning she has worked all her life, tirelessly for the people she represents.
She can not retire she has to keep going,

www.royal.gov.uk...

The Queen carries out around 430 engagements each year..not bad going for an 87 year old lady.
So she does work, ok it isn't digging a ditch but you can compare what she does to what any head of state does..she tries to big up the uk and she has done a grand job in my opinion, she has also put her loved ones in harms way (has any US president sent their grandkids to war?).
So don't say she does nothing because she does a great deal.

Just to point out I used to be very anti royal until I looked into what she does....now when Charlie gets on the throne I may change my mind but Liz has done us all proud.

edit on 22-7-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Yes, thank you, I wasn't aware of that.

I knew that the UK was socialistic, but I didn't know what every Canadian learns in 1st grade - that the Queen - represented by the "governor general", is technically our head of state.

Again, this only goes to show how ridiculous this arrangement is. Why are former British colonies like Canada, Australia, India and South Africa, even bothering to pretend that they give a flying # about the Queen of England?

I'm sorry, I do not subscribe to this system, I think it is silly, ridiculous, and a ploy to keep the British involved in our affairs.

I have no trouble acknowledging the kinship between anglosaxon nations - which would include America - but this whole Queen and royal family nonsense is a vestige of an ancient system which every modern person acknowledges is intrinsically unjust; yet, despite this acknowledgement, we indulge them; when she comes to Canada, we come out and wave our hands. When any of the Princes make their rounds, again, we indulge in it.

Does anyone bother to wonder, why? The mascot argument is pointless. We don't need a figurehead aristocrat to keep us united; on the contrary, that's the sort of argument that the aristocracy would make in order to keep themselves relevant.

So, again, why do we indulge these people? The Russians had the right idea when they butchered the Romanovs. Today's present British royal family comes from a line of nobles who haven't worked a day in their life for at least 1000 years. They're born with the proverbial silver spoon; they do nothing for a living; in our history books, we acknowledge the iniquity of this arrangement; yet, again, we (or the British, the ones who maintain this charade) come out and anxiously await the birth of the next aristocrat.

It's stupidity.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 





I wouldn't be a royal, not even with all the good things that come with it. They are our slaves, the queen doesn't decide what she has to do in the morning she has worked all her life, tirelessly for the people she represents. She can not retire she has to keep going,


Wow, that's quite the positive spin.

She "works" for the people, yet, she can never be fired; she can never be ousted, as per the universal arrangement established by aristocrats. What a horrible job that is.




The Queen carries out around 430 engagements each year..not bad going for an 87 year old lady. So she does work, ok it isn't digging a ditch but you can compare what she does to what any head of state does..she tries to big up the uk and she has done a grand job in my opinion, she has also put her loved ones in harms way (has any US president sent their grandkids to war?).


I'm not sure we can really say "she does a great deal". She's not involved in running the government; her role is ceremonial, visits, etc. That technically can qualify as work, I suppose, but is it necessary work? Should we in North America set up a royal family, grant them super-honorific titles like King, Queen, Prince, etc, and allow them to host dinners, visit hospitals, etc?

Simple question: Can the United Kingdom survive without the memory of it's monarchic past? Or is the royal family a culturally necessary fixture?



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Astrocyte
 


I never said she can never be fired, look at what happened to Charles the 1st, he is the reason why our Kings and Queens can not have total power.
Iam sure If she had over stepped her boundaries she would have been removed.
I think the royals will stay as long as the people want them and at the moment the public do want them.
My country is very old and we like our History the good and the bad, tradition is part of who we are as a national identity and having royals is part of that.
Answer to your question, we would do just fine without them but like I said we don't want to get rid just yet...If we did they would be gone.
edit on 22-7-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 



I think the royals will stay as long as the people want them and at the moment the public do want them.


Surely, you must have ambivalent feelings about it. I can understand what you mean, but the sheer fact in itself: one family considers themselves better than everybody else: their very titles, regalia, and lifestyle demonstrates it. This must be a little rankling.

I have no problem if someone EARNS their wealth and privileges; but when they're born into it, as the members of the royal family are, it's a bit grating.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by macpdm
 


Baron Von Munchausen



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Astrocyte
 


You can say the same about any person who has been born into money, It isn't like they can go out and spend millions on cars etc, they don't the Queen actually lives quite frugally, yeah at state dinners she wears the jewels (belongs to us the british people BTW) but she doesn't lord it up like I would in her position.
Like I said I used to hate the royals until I got a little older and I researched into what they do, she worried when her grandchild went to war just like any other mother or grandmother would.
The royals know they have to keep the public happy and Liz has done a great job.
I hope Charles doesn't cock it all up (he is a bit foolish in my eyes) but I think William will try and follow on his mothers work and help more folk.

With Queen Liz I sometimes wish she had more power, she has seen it and done it all, politics wise and Iam sure she would have done a better job than many of our prime ministers.
I just hope the new heir to the throne is brought up with empathy and compassion so when he gets on the throne he does a good job for the British and Commonwealth general public.
edit on 22-7-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   
I was thinking they might go with Nelson, in honor of Mandella.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 


If they named him Nelson they would name him after Lord Horatio Nelson



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Heyy my sister had her baby today too!!



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Treyvon

Or Optimus Prime



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Arthur William Charles Phillip

that's my pick



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 





You can say the same about any person who has been born into money,


I figured you would mention that.

There is a difference between being born into money because your father earned it - and you are merely enjoying the spoils of that capital - and being perpetually born into wealth and prestige.

The former has an end; most wealthy families have a expiry date - and the fate follows a specific system i.e. capitalism, that the family has no power to control. So while a rich little son might be able to enjoy his fathers wealth, there is good reason to believe by the time he has children, unless he himself tries to earn his own way through life, that he too will be in the dumpsters.

That's the beauty of capitalism. No one is assured higher status; money and wealth fluctuates. To stay atop, you have to stay active. And not to mention a little bit of luck.

Now as for this royal family which you seem to truly endear, they're perennially wealthy. You can extenuate this fact in any way you like: "the jewels belong to the british people" - but who wears them? Who flies the private jets? Who vacations on yachts in the Mediterranean, or lounges in private resorts in the British Virgin Islands?



Like I said I used to hate the royals until I got a little older and I researched into what they do, she worried when her grandchild went to war just like any other mother or grandmother would.


I'm not sure why you keep repeating this. Do you think it'll convince me? That perhaps I'm not as mature as you are? That if I knew more about what they did, that I would show more appreciation?

You know what, If you weren't so damn certain about their utility, I would probably be more amenable, but this surefire "they're useful" attitude betrays the truth that they don't really serve any friggin purpose to begin with.

Being ambivalent acknowledges your humanity. In a situation like this, I acknowledged your feeling that the British royal family might possess a "mascot" like talismanic power; that perhaps, changing whats been tradition would be a loss. Ok, feeling acknowledged, and understood. But to be so damn certain about this viewpoint requires you to completely ignore all the evidence I've adduced to show how undeserving of this position they really are.

Enjoy your Queen. I'm done talk'n about this.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I'll play.

I'm thinking William will want to acknowledge his mother in some way. I don't know if they''d do Spencer as a middle name so I'll go with Diana's father's name Edward.

Arthur Charles Michael Edward

Charles and Michael are for the new baby's grandfathers



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astrocyte
reply to post by Kali74
 


Again, this only goes to show how ridiculous this arrangement is. Why are former British colonies like Canada, Australia, India and South Africa, even bothering to pretend that they give a flying # about the Queen of England?


Former british colonies? Canada, Australia and New Zealand are STILL british colonies. I hope you didn't really think Canada was a country LOL.

Apart from that little bit and back to the thread, who really gives a flying f.... what the name of the little inborn monster and future most-expensive-welfare-recipient will be?

Cheers - Dave



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join