1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Would you call your new baby boy 'Louis'?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Ancientpencil, 27 Apr 2018.

  1. dirtybeatfreak

    Mobster

    Joined: 25 Jun 2006

    Posts: 4,165

    You have no concept on the Royals finances at all do you, nor who owns the 'Estates' that you mention. I suggest you go research it before spouting so much rubbish :p
     
  2. Dis86

    Suspended

    Joined: 23 Dec 2011

    Posts: 28,576

    Location: Northern England

    Quality burn. Saw the post and thought "Zing!". Saw the poster. Made it even better.

    Really? France had 19 of them.

    Also I'm guessing he's named after Louis Mountbatten who had a very close relationship with Prince Charles (so much so that I believe Charles referred to him as an honorary grandfather and vice versa).
     
  3. Psycho Sonny

    Perma Banned

    Joined: 21 Jun 2006

    Posts: 38,365

    oh yeah they own them. as they did steal them way back when.

    but we pay for their maintenance as well as all their salaries, etc.

    i know full well how their wealth works. they rent said stolen land to the uk government who then rents it out for a profit, etc.

    so it's a good deal for the government. however the land was taken by force. if someone did that today their would be an out cry.

    it's about time they had it all taken away.
     
  4. dirtybeatfreak

    Mobster

    Joined: 25 Jun 2006

    Posts: 4,165

    We do not pay for the maintenance of them at all, nor do we pay their salaries. They are paid from the Sovereign grant which is paid out from the profits of the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate also pays for the maintenance of the buildings such as Buckingham Palace and other popular estates I think you mean. They do not pay for private owned ones.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family

    Don't know enough about if/how they stole their land so I can't give you my opinion on that but I will say that it was probably back in the day when all other countries Royals/leaders were doing the same,do you think they should give back their land too?? :p
     
    Last edited: 27 Apr 2018
  5. Reginald

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 24 Aug 2008

    Posts: 1,312

    Location: London

    Is it pronounced Lewis or Lewee though?
    Because that totally doesn't change the fact that I'd never call my child Louis.
     
  6. TheOracle

    Capodecina

    Joined: 30 Sep 2005

    Posts: 14,100

    Lewee is way cooler than Lewis.............Lewis, just no
     
  7. Jean-F

    Mobster

    Joined: 14 Apr 2017

    Posts: 3,084

    Location: London

    We wouldn’t choose it, but as for it being an
    odd name for a Royal, Mord votre langue!
     
  8. Psycho Sonny

    Perma Banned

    Joined: 21 Jun 2006

    Posts: 38,365

    it should be slowly divided through years of inheritance taxation to the estate. division of wealth.

    it's not fair they get all that money just because their great great great great great great great grandad stole a lot of land way back when. when others are born with nothing.

    their wealth should be divided over time as it is for everyone else.
     
  9. LeeUK

    Soldato

    Joined: 1 Mar 2008

    Posts: 5,730

    Hehehe :D

    Only problem is I can't get a cheap private numberplate with my initials on the end. :(
     
  10. dirtybeatfreak

    Mobster

    Joined: 25 Jun 2006

    Posts: 4,165


    So do you think that anyone else who owns land that their distant ancestors took should also give it back over time? Pretty sure the whole world in some shape or form would be giving something back. Should the current descendants of the Romans give any land they have accrued back too??

    Please take that as a friendly question and not trying to cause an argument :). I am genuinely interested in your opinion. I do understand your train of thought, but not too sure why you single the Royal family out over anyone else who has done this in history??
     
  11. Reginald

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 24 Aug 2008

    Posts: 1,312

    Location: London

    Agreed! Still bottom of the heap for me though...
     
  12. Psycho Sonny

    Perma Banned

    Joined: 21 Jun 2006

    Posts: 38,365

    it's the fact their wealth is protected and doesn't have to abide by the laws everyone else does.

    i don't believe the tourism argument at all. I don't know any Canadian or American that has visited in the past did so solely because we have a royal family neither did it play a major factor in their decision. Most of them don't even know or could care less.

    It's not fair with the current austerity measures they never have to even contemplate such things. Which is my my first post said it's funny how the government has put in measures to stop benefits for people with more than 2 children. Yet similar rules will never apply to the royals because of something their ancestor did hundreds of years ago.

    They do not warrant special treatment. They should be treated as if they were the same as any other wealthy person in the world.
     
  13. AHarvey

    Capodecina

    Joined: 6 Mar 2008

    Posts: 10,060

    Location: Stoke area


    Nothing like arguing facts by simply saying you don't believe in them! :D

    The Royal Family bring in more money than they take, it's that simple.
     
  14. Jean-F

    Mobster

    Joined: 14 Apr 2017

    Posts: 3,084

    Location: London

    I don’t have a dog in this hunt, as I could care less about the British Royal Family, although I wish them no harm.
    With my heritage, I still wonder how bad it must have been in 1848, when Louis-Philippe d’Orléans was forced to abdicate the throne of France, and died in Surrey, England, in 1850, quelle honte!
    I digress, while I agree that American and Canadian tourists didn’t come to London SOLELY because of the Royal Family, when I was a Black Cab driver I’d say that three out of five jobs I picked up outside Buck House after the Changing of the Guard were American tourists, they loved all that pomp and stuff.
     
  15. chroniclard

    Capodecina

    Joined: 23 Apr 2014

    Posts: 20,456

    Location: Hertfordshire

    No worse than top baby names 2017 is it.
    1. Muhammad
    2. Oliver
    3. Harry
    4. Jack
    5. George
    6. Noah
    7. Leo
    8. Jacob
    9. Oscar
    10. Charlie
     
  16. Sliver

    Capodecina

    Joined: 27 Dec 2011

    Posts: 10,821

    Location: Darlington

    I like the name Louis. I think it's much better than traditional royal names which always seem to be echoing former royals from the past. Louis has a more contemporary feel to it and reflects a more modern feel to this latest generation of the royal family.
     
  17. Skunkworks

    Soldato

    Joined: 3 Jun 2005

    Posts: 7,438

    Delta tango, over.
     
  18. Burnsy2023

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Nov 2003

    Posts: 36,718

    Location: Southampton, UK

    I agree with all of that. Not sure I'd call my kid Louis but it's not a bad choice.
     
  19. Burnsy2023

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Nov 2003

    Posts: 36,718

    Location: Southampton, UK

    Surely it should be:
    Uniform
    Kilo
     
  20. Dis86

    Suspended

    Joined: 23 Dec 2011

    Posts: 28,576

    Location: Northern England

    Except it's all wrong. As I've pointed out there have been 19 French rulers called Louis and the child is named after Lord Louis Mountbatten. So it what sense does it not echo royals of the past?