Prince George of Cambridge

[Irbis]

At least the British royals make some attempt to be useful. The current queen worked as a truck mechanic during WWII. Prince Harry is on active duty in the military. William flies a search-and-rescue helicopter. They could have chosen to be useless playboys but they got real jobs. Well, not every relative, but those closet to throne have tried to have actual careers while waiting to inherit.

The question is, were they real jobs or part of it was showing off while no expense was spared to keep them free of danger as much as possible. Wasn't Prince Harry evacuated from his post in Afghanistan when danger levels rose?

[fordlltwm]

At least the British royals make some attempt to be useful. The current queen worked as a truck mechanic during WWII. Prince Harry is on active duty in the military. William flies a search-and-rescue helicopter. They could have chosen to be useless playboys but they got real jobs. Well, not every relative, but those closet to throne have tried to have actual careers while waiting to inherit.

The question is, were they real jobs or part of it was showing off while no expense was spared to keep them free of danger as much as possible. Wasn't Prince Harry evacuated from his post in Afghanistan when danger levels rose?

If I recall correctly Prince Harry was evacuated when a foreign tabloid decided to tell the world exactly where on the front line he was. Now as he's a chopper pilot and in a secure base he can stay without worrying about the taliban knowing where he is, unlike when he was at the front line, where it would've put him and his colleagues at much greater risk.

[Thanas]

He is currently an SAR pilot, which is not an easy job to hold.

[TimothyC]

He is currently an SAR pilot, which is not an easy job to hold.

William is the SAR pilot, Harry is the Apache Pilot.

[Broomstick]

Frankly, being a professional helicopter pilot of any sort is a highly skilled thing. Being a combat or SAR pilot just ups that.

[Thanas]

And Prince Andrew fought in the Falklands, iirc.

[Ultonius]

Harry actually qualified as an Apache commander earlier this month.

[Broomstick]

Military service is a long tradition in the UK monarchy. Both Charles and William wanted to serve actively but as direct-line heirs neither was allowed to do so. I recall an interview with Charles about that, and how he and William had some extended conversations about the matter, which lead to William pursuing search-and-rescue as a way to serve his country.

Not that the royal family is entirely risk-averse - they refused to evacuate during the London Blitz, not even their younger children even as many other children their age were being shipped to the countryside for safety. Sure, it was a PR "stunt" but far from risk-free - Buckingham Place was hit by bombs seven times during the Blitz, including times the royal family was in residence there.

I think the tradition of service in the British royals is tied to their awareness of the fact that the only reason the royal family is maintained as royals is because the population at large allows the custom to continue. If they don't make themselves useful the monarchy could be dissolved. They only keep the job if they can make their subjects happy to have them around. (Of course, there is an anti-royal segment in Britain, but not widespread or strong enough to abolish the monarchy at this point)

[madd0ct0r]

between them, the royal family could probably operate as a air/water special forces unit. it's quite a strange thought.

[PeZook]

between them, the royal family could probably operate as a air/water special forces unit. it's quite a strange thought.

No no, it makes perfect sense! Using their lavish resources, they serve as Britain's elite technological superhero force, protecting the Kingdom from mysterious and unimaginable threats every day!

THIS is the real reason why they are allowed to have any power. Tourism? Tradition? Pfeh!

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, that might make a fairly good movie.

[Captain Seafort]

Of course, there is an anti-royal segment in Britain, but not widespread or strong enough to abolish the monarchy at this point

True, but by the same token that there's probably a comparable degree of anti-republican sentiment in the US.

[Eternal_Freedom]

You know, that might make a fairly good movie.

I tihnk it would be better suited to a comic book but it still sounds hilarious.

Then again, as Doctor Who showed, they're all Werewolves which is why no one actively tries to get rid of them

[Havok]

Of course, there is an anti-royal segment in Britain, but not widespread or strong enough to abolish the monarchy at this point

True, but by the same token that there's probably a comparable degree of anti-republican sentiment in the US.

You mean anti-republic?
There is far more than enough sentiment to abolish Republicans. (Unfortunately the one thing America has more of than sentiment is apathy and laziness.)
The sad part is most Americans don't even know what a republic is, let alone that they live in one.

[Captain Seafort]

You mean anti-republic?

Same thing - the difference is probably just different rules of grammar this side of the pond.

There is far more than enough sentiment to abolish Republicans.

Them too, but I was referring to small 'r' republicanism.

[Ultonius]

His name is George Alexander Louis - BBC

24 July 2013 Last updated at 18:31

Royal baby: William and Kate name their son George

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have named their son George Alexander Louis, Kensington Palace has said.

George had been the bookmakers' favourite for the first name of the prince, who is third in line to the throne.

He will be known as His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge.

They are currently at the duchess's family home in Bucklebury, Berkshire, after spending a night at Kensington Palace.

The Duke and Duchess had been expected to pick a traditional royal name for their son, who was born at St Mary's Hospital in London on Monday at 16:24 BST, weighing 8lbs 6oz.

Royal infants usually have historical names which are passed down through the generations.

This is a relatively quick announcement of a name compared to previous royal babies.

It was seven days before the name of a newborn Prince William was announced in 1982, and there was a wait of a month following the Prince Charles's birth in 1948.

All births in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, regardless of parentage, must be registered within 42 days at the hospital before leaving or a register office.

So if Charles becomes Charles III, Prince George can be George VII, but if Charles decides to use George as his regnal name, then his grandson can choose between being George VIII and Alexander IV.

[Bedlam]

His name is George Alexander Louis - BBC

24 July 2013 Last updated at 18:31

Royal baby: William and Kate name their son George

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have named their son George Alexander Louis, Kensington Palace has said.

George had been the bookmakers' favourite for the first name of the prince, who is third in line to the throne.

He will be known as His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge.

They are currently at the duchess's family home in Bucklebury, Berkshire, after spending a night at Kensington Palace.

The Duke and Duchess had been expected to pick a traditional royal name for their son, who was born at St Mary's Hospital in London on Monday at 16:24 BST, weighing 8lbs 6oz.

Royal infants usually have historical names which are passed down through the generations.

This is a relatively quick announcement of a name compared to previous royal babies.

It was seven days before the name of a newborn Prince William was announced in 1982, and there was a wait of a month following the Prince Charles's birth in 1948.

All births in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, regardless of parentage, must be registered within 42 days at the hospital before leaving or a register office.

So if Charles becomes Charles III, Prince George can be George VII, but if Charles decides to use George as his regnal name, then his grandson can choose between being George VIII and Alexander IV.

I have hopeing for Arthur.

[DaveJB]

I think the tradition of service in the British royals is tied to their awareness of the fact that the only reason the royal family is maintained as royals is because the population at large allows the custom to continue. If they don't make themselves useful the monarchy could be dissolved. They only keep the job if they can make their subjects happy to have them around.

That's pretty much the reason why Prince Andrew is generally tolerated even though there are times when he doesn't seem to do a hell of a lot, while Prince Edward (who only managed three months as a navy cadet in the late 80s) tends to be regarded as an underachieving idiot whose sole contribution to society has been getting the British workforce a day off when he married Sophie. (In fairness, both do a lot of charity work, but Edward hasn't helped his public image much over the years)

So if Charles becomes Charles III, Prince George can be George VII, but if Charles decides to use George as his regnal name, then his grandson can choose between being George VIII and Alexander IV.

It'd just be Alexander. Scottish and Welsh monarchs, along with English monarchs prior to 1066 aren't counted towards any number a monarch has after his or her name.

[Broomstick]

Of course, there is an anti-royal segment in Britain, but not widespread or strong enough to abolish the monarchy at this point

True, but by the same token that there's probably a comparable degree of anti-republican sentiment in the US.

Oh, absolutely - not just in the sense of not liking the Republican party (and yes, I know you didn't mean that) but also people who are all sorts of alternatives - communists, those who think a dictatorship would work better (funny, they always fancy themselves at the top), those who want religious theocracy, true anarchists, pseudo-anarchists, and even some who would like to rejoin the British Commonwealth and their royals.

[His Divine Shadow]

It does baffle me that the US, which fought two wars to be free of the British, have so many who are so fascinated by the British royals.

Yeah well I bet it's the same in other countries that used to wage wars against the brits too.

[Ultonius]

It'd just be Alexander. Scottish and Welsh monarchs, along with English monarchs prior to 1066 aren't counted towards any number a monarch has after his or her name.

Oh really?

Wikipedia

After the realms were united with the Acts of Union 1707, separate numbers were not needed for the next five monarchs: Anne and the four Georges. However, when William IV acceded in 1830, he was not called William III in Scotland.[citation needed] (George Croly pointed out in 1830 the new king was William I, II, III, and IV: of Hanover, Ireland, Scotland, and England respectively.[2]) Nor were Edward VII and Edward VIII known as Edward I and Edward II (or possibly II and III, if one counts the disputed reign of Edward Balliol) of Scotland. These kings all followed the numbering consistent with the English sequence of sovereigns (which, incidentally, was also the higher of the two numbers in all occurring cases). This was not without controversy in Scotland, however; for example, Edward VII's regnal number was occasionally omitted in Scotland, even by the established Church of Scotland, in deference to protests that the previous Edwards were English kings who had "been excluded from Scotland by battle".[3]

The issue arose again with the accession of the current monarch, Elizabeth II, as Scotland has never before had a regnant Queen Elizabeth, the previous queen of that name having been queen of England only. In order to avoid controversy, it was suggested by Winston Churchill that, in the future, the higher of the two numerals from the English and Scottish sequences would always be used.[4] So, theoretically, any future British King Edward would be given the number IX, even though there have only been two (or three) previous Edwards in Scotland, but any future King Robert would be given the number IV, even though he would be the first Robert to reign in England.

The relevant passage in Hansard:

ROYAL STYLE AND TITLE
HC Deb 15 April 1953 vol 514 cc199-201 199

§ 46. Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

asked the Prime Minister whether, in advising the Sovereign to assume the title of Elizabeth II, he took into consideration the desirability of adopting the principle of using whichever numeral in the English or Scottish lines of Kings and Queens happens to be the higher.

§ The Prime Minister

The decision to assume the title of Elizabeth II was of course taken on the advice of the Accession Council and the form of the proclamation was approved by Her Majesty's Government.

Since the Act of Union the principle to which my right hon. and gallant Friend refers has in fact been followed. Although I am sure neither The Queen nor her advisers could seek to bind their successors in such a matter, I think it would be reasonable and logical to continue to adopt in future whichever numeral in the English or Scottish line were higher. Thus if, for instance, a King Robert or a King James came to the throne he might well be designated by the numeral appropriate to the Scottish succession, thereby emphasising that our Royal Family traces its descent through the English Royal line from William the Conqueror and beyond, and through the Scottish Royal line from Robert the Bruce and Malcolm Canmore and still further back. Her Majesty's present advisers would for their part find no difficulty in accepting such a principle. From this it naturally follows that there should not in their view be any difficulty anywhere in acknowledging the Style and Title of Her present Majesty.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

Will my right hon. Friend have a special note taken 200 of this matter for the archives in future years so that a point of great interest to many people and one of much historical importance should never be overlooked?

§ The Prime Minister

I cannot conceive that it will be ignored by the regular methods of reporting, and not remembered by all who take a special interest in it.

§ Mr. Woodburn

Is the Prime Minister aware that however trifling it may seem to people on this side of the Border, the handling of this thing has caused a certain amount of irritation among the population of Scotland and that it would be very useful if some courtesy were shown to Scotland when they ask for information? The Prime Minister has gone some way towards that.

§ Mrs. Mann

Is the Prime Minister aware that this decision has set Scotland one terrific problem because the Mint has decided to issue the coins with "Elizabeth II," and Scots who object to this title are placed in an awful dilemma?

§ The Prime Minister

I hope that theoretical refinements will not prevent the normal conduct of business.

§ Mr. Gower

Can the Prime Minister state what course will be followed if a future British monarch should bear the name Llewellyn?

§ The Prime Minister

I hope I may ask for long notice of that question

§ Mr. Manuel

Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate, in connection with the adoption of the title of Elizabeth II, what discussions he had with the Secretary of State for Scotland and what his attitude was?

§ The Prime Minister

I had long and searching discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland who has gone up, I believe, on some political engagement in the North at the present time. We searchingly examined the whole problem, and it was with his full concurrence, and even on his advice, that I gave the answer which I have just read to the House.

§ Mr. Ross

Will the Prime Minister tell us why he decided on 1066 as the starting date for this? Was it to get out of the difficulty of the fact that the first King Edward is not known as Edward I, but as Edward the Confessor?

201

§ The Prime Minister

As the great scroll of history unfolds many complicated incidents occur which it is difficult to introduce effectively into the pattern of the likes and dislikes of the epoch in which we live.

[Simon_Jester]

That last line is actually a very good Churchill quote, now that I think about it.

[It was him talking as Prime Minister, given the timing]

[Captain Seafort]

That last line is actually a very good Churchill quote, now that I think about it.

[It was him talking as Prime Minister, given the timing]

It would have been an even better quote if he'd had a dig at Mr Ross for forgetting about the Martyr and the Elder, both of whom reigned before the Confessor.

[Mr Bean]

I have no cared what so ever about the future potential monarch of Britain until his name released. Even then I did not care until it was pointed out elsewhere we came within one name of a Alexander Louis Armstrong and that was a tiny shame. Mostly because it could have provided another twelve hours of useless what could it mean coverage from our "top" news channels.

[LadyTevar]

I wanted Stephen.
There's only been one King Stephen (grandson of Willie the Conqueror)