Yesterday I was preferring Daniel Alexander Louis George Charles Edward Henry.
I am concerned that the Duke of Cambridge may be losing his touch in being able to judge the public mood and keeping the Monarchy relevant to the modern psyche. Giving only three names to the heir, instead of four, is alarmingly symptomatic of perhaps too much bumbing-down.
Also, if the announcement of the name had been delayed for a further 15 minutes, then it would have been too late for the BBC Six O'Clock News and it would have pissed off Nicholas Witchell.
I have to admit I'm not particularly fond of George as a name: it sounds a bit old-fashioned to me. When I was at school I can't remember anyone with the name.
Didn't they refer to Edward VIII as "David" in The King's Speech movie?
Yes. He was always known as "David" until he became King, and chose to be called Edward VIII. His full name was Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David.
Much will depend on whether the next in line opt for their first or other names. Charles may go for George VII as you indicate but William and his son may do likewise. Recent precedent is mixed.
Queen Victoria was Alexandrina Edward VII was Albert George V was George Edward VIII was Edward George VI was Albert Elizabeth II was Elizabeth
Edward VIII was known as David before he acceded to the throne, although that was the last of his six given names.
As for Stodge saying the new prince should be encouraged to follow a career in business because the armed forces are too remote from everyday life - hmm. I'd take that more seriously if he could guarantee that he had always been fully supportive of the business careers of other royals and had never forex mocked Prince Andrew as "airmiles Andy" or criticised the perfectly legal tax arrangements of the Duchy of Cornwall, which has become a highly successful brand under Prince Charles' stewardship.
So the line from the Labour folk on here is that it is a good thing when the Leader of their largest donor says that their donations are no longer guaranteed to Labour and that in future they will tie in political monies with the then policies promulgated by the Labour party?
Could anyone please explain what a bad day for Labour would look like?
Chris Christie 15% Paul Ryan 13% Marco Rubio 12% Jeb Bush 10% Rand Paul 9% Ted Cruz 7% Rick Perry 4% Rick Santorum 2% Scott Walker 2% Bobby Jindal 1% Susana Martinez 1% Unsure 25%
So the line from the Labour folk on here is that it is a good thing when the Leader of their largest donor says that their donations are no longer guaranteed to Labour and that in future they will tie in political monies with the then policies promulgated by the Labour party?
Could anyone please explain what a bad day for Labour would look like?
You know exactly what a bad day for Labour looks like. Cameron replaces Chum Osborne and Chum Hunt with Theresa May and Phil Hammond
Usually I would agree about Osborne, but over the past year he has done surprisingly better as indicated by the polls. But what actions taken by Labour people would be as bad as today?
Two nurses faked patient records to meet targets at scandal-hit Stafford Hospital - with one also found to have used foul mouthed language about patients.
Sharon Turner and Tracy White falsified accident and emergency discharge times to avoid missing a government goal for patients to be dealt with within four hours.
The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) also found that nurse Sharon Turner used foul mouthed language about patients and threatened to make her colleague’s life 'hell'.
She also made racially-motivated comments about doctors at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and falsified A&E waiting times data, the nursing regulator found. Between December 2003 and October 2009, when Ms Turner worked at the trust, she spoke about patients and staff in an 'inappropriate manner', the NMC panel ruled.
On one occasion she said that she didn’t give a 'flying f***” about patients.
She also said 'they can f****** wait' and 'they want to get real', or words to that effect.
The panel also ruled that she made racially motivated comments about Asian junior doctors.
'What have you got in your rucksack doctor, is it a bomb?' she is reported to have said.
She is also accused of calling them 'suicide bombers' or 'Osama’s mate'.
So the line from the Labour folk on here is that it is a good thing when the Leader of their largest donor says that their donations are no longer guaranteed to Labour and that in future they will tie in political monies with the then policies promulgated by the Labour party?
Could anyone please explain what a bad day for Labour would look like?
You know exactly what a bad day for Labour looks like. Cameron replaces Chum Osborne and Chum Hunt with Theresa May and Phil Hammond
Successful dog breeders always chose Pedigree Chum over Winalot, tim.
This is incredible. It's impossible to parody. Two nurses faked patient records to meet targets at scandal-hit Stafford Hospital - with one also found to have used foul mouthed language about patients. Sharon Turner and Tracy White falsified accident and emergency discharge times to avoid missing a government goal for patients to be dealt with within four hours. The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) also found that nurse Sharon Turner used foul mouthed language about patients and threatened to make her colleague’s life 'hell'. .......
Did they also serve as role models for Danny Boyle's dancing angels and our envy of the world? Which no other country has copied.
So the line from the Labour folk on here is that it is a good thing when the Leader of their largest donor says that their donations are no longer guaranteed to Labour and that in future they will tie in political monies with the then policies promulgated by the Labour party?
Could anyone please explain what a bad day for Labour would look like?
You know exactly what a bad day for Labour looks like. Cameron replaces Chum Osborne and Chum Hunt with Theresa May and Phil Hammond
Successful dog breeders always chose Pedigree Chum over Winalot, tim.
We know Dave prefers Pedigree Chums to Winalot when it comes to elections, that was tested to destruction in 2010
After Blackadder the Third, how can anyone name a Prince, George?
I know it's stodgy Hanovarian in an apfel strudel sort of a way. James was my favourite but doubtless we'd have Salmond popping up arguing about III or IX. I won't be here to see it anyway.
While Danny Boyle had the letters NHS featured, it arose out of a Peter Pan/ Great Ormond street montage, so the Dancing nurses were wearing Edwardian type uniforms. This would be a couple of generations before the NHS existed. Florence Nightingale was arguably the inventor of modern nursing (as well as the pie chart), so has been lauded internationally.
All too often NHS is conflated with the idealism, professionalism and dedication of the nursing and medical profession so tags along on these ideals. These ideals will survive the NHS, and sadly scandals are not found just in one sector. In many ways the corruption of these ideals by health service management is the root of the scandals in Stafford and elsewhere.
This is incredible. It's impossible to parody. Two nurses faked patient records to meet targets at scandal-hit Stafford Hospital - with one also found to have used foul mouthed language about patients. Sharon Turner and Tracy White falsified accident and emergency discharge times to avoid missing a government goal for patients to be dealt with within four hours. The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) also found that nurse Sharon Turner used foul mouthed language about patients and threatened to make her colleague’s life 'hell'. .......
Did they also serve as role models for Danny Boyle's dancing angels and our envy of the world? Which no other country has copied.
Plato - While Prince Charles has his organic foods, I can't see many royals being good at business, maybe Princess Anne would have been OK, she is generally tough and no nonsense and dislikes unnecessary expense
After Blackadder the Third, how can anyone name a Prince, George?
I know it's stodgy Hanovarian in an apfel strudel sort of a way. James was my favourite but doubtless we'd have Salmond popping up arguing about III or IX. I won't be here to see it anyway.
I don't think Salmond would have argued. An independent Kingdom of Scotland would have opted for James VIII or more interestingly the Jacobite regnal number James IX.
While I appreciate there are issues with security and safety which can be managed in the environment of the military, the fact remains that for the overwhelming majority of the population, the military, with its values and mores, is not a world about which much is known or to which many are in any way connected.
I don't see the harm in exposing the future monarch of the country to the world of commerce and business if for no other reason than for said individual to gain even a limited insight of how a significant part of the population go about our lives. Whether we work to live or live to work, the fact is for many of us we have to work to earn a living and doing that (whether we enjoy it or endure it) is a big part of what makes us the society we are.
I merely find it curious that instead of steering a future Monarch to gain that insight, he is packed off to a lifestyle about which few of us know anything,
After Blackadder the Third, how can anyone name a Prince, George?
I know it's stodgy Hanovarian in an apfel strudel sort of a way. James was my favourite but doubtless we'd have Salmond popping up arguing about III or IX. I won't be here to see it anyway.
I don't think Salmond would have argued. An independent Kingdom of Scotland would have opted for James VIII or more interestingly the Jacobite regnal number James IX.
Sure, my question was more if there were no independence. Still Salmond really will have had a good innings if he's still in harness by the time the new lad ascends the throne :-)
PB Tories like Plato going on and on and on and on and on about Len McCluskey, hoping in vain to score a small point for their party.
And someone has had a baby.
Though Mike's NHS thread was more interesting and insightful, good work. If NHS salience rises amongst voters because politicians of all parties have made a mess of stuff, Labour will benefit as they're by far the best party on the issue. Seems that straightforward to me.
''Ed Miliband reforms will boost union influence, says Unite leader''
The telegraph editorial says that Len has put Ed in a 'horrible position'
But what do they know?
They're flirting, taffys, and playing out an age-old dance that will ultimately be mutually beneficial.
Meanwhile, the Tory obsession with union attacks diminishes their chances of victory (whilst possibly enhancing their chances of denying Ed a majority, which is clearly the strategy now).
After Blackadder the Third, how can anyone name a Prince, George?
I know it's stodgy Hanovarian in an apfel strudel sort of a way. James was my favourite but doubtless we'd have Salmond popping up arguing about III or IX. I won't be here to see it anyway.
I don't think Salmond would have argued. An independent Kingdom of Scotland would have opted for James VIII or more interestingly the Jacobite regnal number James IX.
Sure, my question was more if there were no independence. Still Salmond really will have had a good innings if he's still in harness by the time the new lad ascends the throne :-)
If there was no independence then James would still have been James VIII.
Following the convention of the present Queens accession the regnal number is the highest of the number either the English or Scottish monarchy achieved for that name. Thus it would be :
James VIII not James III William IV not William III Philip II not Philip I Alexander IV not Alexander I
@Carl - since you're clearly missing what the newspapers are covering;
"“The block vote didn’t stop a Labour government invading Iraq. Affiliation didn’t keep Labour out of the clutches of the banks and the City. Our special relationship didn’t get the union laws repealed.”
This leaves Mr Miliband in a horrible position. He has recently been attempting (with little success) to distract from his union problems by whipping up a fuss over Lynton Crosby, David Cameron’s adviser. But aside from the synthetic nature of the outrage, the state of Mr Crosby’s client list is hardly as serious a matter as the very future of the Labour Party. Mr Miliband – who owes his position to the union block vote – cannot be a credible leader unless he repudiates Mr McCluskey and his ilk, and proves that the Blair years were not just a brief interregnum in Labour’s long march to the Left. The price of that credibility will be to risk bankrupting his party. It is not a pretty choice. But then, since he was the one who allowed Mr McCluskey to gain such sway over the party in the first place, it is hard to feel much sympathy.
@tim - isn't it great progress that we're hearing about these problems while there is still time to do something about them - not after its 5 years too late under Labour?
Whether we work to live or live to work, the fact is for many of us we have to work to earn a living and doing that (whether we enjoy it or endure it) is a big part of what makes us the society we are.
I merely find it curious that instead of steering a future Monarch to gain that insight, he is packed off to a lifestyle about which few of us know anything,
Cheers stodge; interesting to learn that members of the Armed Forces aren't doing that job to earn a living. I guess they do it just because they really like the loud bangs, eh?
You talk about the narrowness of the Forces as a career because obviously there's only about four of them and none of us have ever met one. Maybe they are shy, or only come out at night?
Yet there are millions of people in the only other bracket - the "world of commerce and business". Wow, can I be one of them? Please? Please?
Unfortunately for your theory I think there might be a bit of specialisation in there too. There are more soldiers than veterinarians.
Plus all of the stuff about it being impossible for a member of the Royal Family to do any job which could give even the merest unfair suspicion of tabloid-manufactured impropriety. That too.
Comments
I am concerned that the Duke of Cambridge may be losing his touch in being able to judge the public mood and keeping the Monarchy relevant to the modern psyche. Giving only three names to the heir, instead of four, is alarmingly symptomatic of perhaps too much bumbing-down.
Also, if the announcement of the name had been delayed for a further 15 minutes, then it would have been too late for the BBC Six O'Clock News and it would have pissed off Nicholas Witchell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hU3CYs77Ku4
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-24/png-pm-warns-coalition-to-stop-misrepresenting-aid-deal/4841552
As for Stodge saying the new prince should be encouraged to follow a career in business because the armed forces are too remote from everyday life - hmm. I'd take that more seriously if he could guarantee that he had always been fully supportive of the business careers of other royals and had never forex mocked Prince Andrew as "airmiles Andy" or criticised the perfectly legal tax arrangements of the Duchy of Cornwall, which has become a highly successful brand under Prince Charles' stewardship.
Could anyone please explain what a bad day for Labour would look like?
Hillary Clinton (D) 47% (46%)
Chris Christie (R) 41% (43%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 48% (54%)
Jeb Bush (R) 40% (38%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 50% (52%)
Rand Paul (R) 38% (41%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 50% (52%)
Marco Rubio (R) 38% (40%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 53%
Paul Ryan (R) 37%
Hillary Clinton (D) 52%
Rick Perry (R) 36%
Chris Christie 15%
Paul Ryan 13%
Marco Rubio 12%
Jeb Bush 10%
Rand Paul 9%
Ted Cruz 7%
Rick Perry 4%
Rick Santorum 2%
Scott Walker 2%
Bobby Jindal 1%
Susana Martinez 1%
Unsure 25%
Two nurses faked patient records to meet targets at scandal-hit Stafford Hospital - with one also found to have used foul mouthed language about patients.
Sharon Turner and Tracy White falsified accident and emergency discharge times to avoid missing a government goal for patients to be dealt with within four hours.
The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) also found that nurse Sharon Turner used foul mouthed language about patients and threatened to make her colleague’s life 'hell'.
She also made racially-motivated comments about doctors at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and falsified A&E waiting times data, the nursing regulator found. Between December 2003 and October 2009, when Ms Turner worked at the trust, she spoke about patients and staff in an 'inappropriate manner', the NMC panel ruled.
On one occasion she said that she didn’t give a 'flying f***” about patients.
She also said 'they can f****** wait' and 'they want to get real', or words to that effect.
The panel also ruled that she made racially motivated comments about Asian junior doctors.
'What have you got in your rucksack doctor, is it a bomb?' she is reported to have said.
She is also accused of calling them 'suicide bombers' or 'Osama’s mate'.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2375226/Nurse-scandal-hit-Stafford-Hospital-said-I-dont-flying-f--patients.html#ixzz2ZzafRnNf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I'm sure Andy Burnham would be sorry to see the back of Hunt.
After all, he's had such an easy ride.....LOL
Both are swivel eyed loons but only one pays the party's bills.
All too often NHS is conflated with the idealism, professionalism and dedication of the nursing and medical profession so tags along on these ideals. These ideals will survive the NHS, and sadly scandals are not found just in one sector. In many ways the corruption of these ideals by health service management is the root of the scandals in Stafford and elsewhere.
@GdnPolitics
Ed Miliband reforms will boost union influence, says Unite leader http://bit.ly/14558RJ
NewsSense™. Always wrong for long
While I appreciate there are issues with security and safety which can be managed in the environment of the military, the fact remains that for the overwhelming majority of the population, the military, with its values and mores, is not a world about which much is known or to which many are in any way connected.
I don't see the harm in exposing the future monarch of the country to the world of commerce and business if for no other reason than for said individual to gain even a limited insight of how a significant part of the population go about our lives. Whether we work to live or live to work, the fact is for many of us we have to work to earn a living and doing that (whether we enjoy it or endure it) is a big part of what makes us the society we are.
I merely find it curious that instead of steering a future Monarch to gain that insight, he is packed off to a lifestyle about which few of us know anything,
The telegraph editorial says that Len has put Ed in a 'horrible position'
But what do they know?
PB Tories like Plato going on and on and on and on and on about Len McCluskey, hoping in vain to score a small point for their party.
And someone has had a baby.
Though Mike's NHS thread was more interesting and insightful, good work. If NHS salience rises amongst voters because politicians of all parties have made a mess of stuff, Labour will benefit as they're by far the best party on the issue. Seems that straightforward to me.
Meanwhile, the Tory obsession with union attacks diminishes their chances of victory (whilst possibly enhancing their chances of denying Ed a majority, which is clearly the strategy now).
"Though Mike's NHS thread was more interesting and insightful, good work. "
I suppose brown-nosing ogh is an improvemnet on Len McClusky but its a bit of a sickening sight to behold.
Following the convention of the present Queens accession the regnal number is the highest of the number either the English or Scottish monarchy achieved for that name. Thus it would be :
James VIII not James III
William IV not William III
Philip II not Philip I
Alexander IV not Alexander I
"“The block vote didn’t stop a Labour government invading Iraq. Affiliation didn’t keep Labour out of the clutches of the banks and the City. Our special relationship didn’t get the union laws repealed.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/union-boss-len-mccluskey-takes-on-oxbridge-blairites-and-demands-more-say-in-labours-policy-making-8730785.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/10199911/Mr-Milibands-dilemma-is-of-his-own-making.html
You talk about the narrowness of the Forces as a career because obviously there's only about four of them and none of us have ever met one. Maybe they are shy, or only come out at night?
Yet there are millions of people in the only other bracket - the "world of commerce and business". Wow, can I be one of them? Please? Please?
Unfortunately for your theory I think there might be a bit of specialisation in there too. There are more soldiers than veterinarians.
Plus all of the stuff about it being impossible for a member of the Royal Family to do any job which could give even the merest unfair suspicion of tabloid-manufactured impropriety. That too.