Seeing how long the Brit royals live, this will likely be a photo of him when he gets the crown.
Posted on 07/24/2013 12:23:57 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Kensington Palace statement
Posted on 07-24 at 17:07:33 CST
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are delighted to announce that they have named their son George Alexander Louis.
The baby will be known as His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge.
Thus the poor kid is burdened with George Alexander Louis Windsor and maybe by his 60s in the 2070s, George VII. One does wonder, with all of the efforts at dissolution and social changes, if there will still be an England or if he will face east and south 5 times a day. I won't be around then so what do I care.
You and others got to this before me:
‘GAL’
Guessing the royal couple never heard the warning of names’ frst initials spelling something comical or worse.
One of our daughters is ‘JET’ - but so long ago before the ‘warning.’ Not bad anyway.
Another family member was ‘HEM’ before marriage.
Being ‘HET’ now is no big deal!
Ding ding ding........you get the prize!
Great Grandfather: King George VI 
Great-great Uncle: Lord Louis Mountbatten (murdered by the terrorist IRA in 1979) 
Well, for one, they give employment to poor, uneducated, not too bright servant boys!
So, who in the family line is Alexander?
BFD
Not to bright servant boy’z serve man....man.
“Jetting off here and there. Living in palaces, catered night and day. The best of everything....and what do the royals contribute?”
Are you talking about the British royals, or the American pretenders?
Damn!!!....
I was hoping for Albert.
Then there would be another royal bert.
bert, wally-bert, razorback bert, dalebert, rahbert A+bert
Now now..... God is not part of the discussion
Queen Elizabeth Alexandra.
I am hoping for a noble name such as Arnold
Jetting off here and there. Living in palaces, catered night and day. The best of everything....and what do the royals contribute?"
http://relentlesslife.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/the-true-cost-of-the-royal-family-explained/
"The cost to maintain the royal family today is £40 million pounds per year as we mentioned before. But the revenue paid to the UK from the Royal lands is 200 million. So £200 million in revenue subtract £40 million in salary costs equals £160 million pounds in profit. That’s right: The Great Britain earns 160 million pounds in profit, every year from the Royal Family."
I hope the “Louis” signifies that they will again raise the claim to France.
And for a working link....
http://relentlesslife.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/the-true-cost-of-the-royal-family-explained/
I don’t care. The USA doesn’t have kings or queens. And I call no one ‘royal highness.’
Yeah, but that's how the MSM lapdogs refer to nObama, when it isn't "Lord Obama".
Good question. There was a Prince Alexander John of Wales who died as an infant in 1871. There is a Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy, who is a few years younger than the Queen. With the independence movement in Scotland, ‘Alexander’ is a good choice. I note that they claim that ‘George’ was not chosen because of King George VI. but just because they liked the name.
While they live a life of extreme luxury, they are also very much in the public spotlight and everything they do can have ramifications, even the naming of their children. There are pros and cons with every station in life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.