Prince… Nemo

The heir to the throne of the United Kingdom is born.

He still does not have a name.

And I thought Italy was disorganised.

Mundabor

Posted on July 23, 2013, in Traditional Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. Mundabor,
    why bother giving the child a name? As with “gender”, he/she/it should choose for him/her/itself once the child is old enough to do so…. It is plainly unjust to coerce somebody into having to live with a name that said somebody does not like. It’s discrimination!

    One must be very hateful to even suggest naming a child! It’s against the child’s self-determination. Right now it is not even sure which species the child will choose…! Why do you presume this has anything to do with being disorganized? It’s about freedom!

    You despicable namist speciesist homophobe…;)

    • I have also thought about that.

      He might be called “it”, or “wind”, and when he grows up he will decide what “gender” he wants to belong to. It is difficult to think he would be forced to renounce to his throne ambitions if he were to, say, have his little friends surgically removed when he is 21. The Camerons of the world would ever rejoice and take it as an example of “modernity”.

      The Royal Family isn’t quite there though, I gather…

      M

  2. You were right, it is. Naming a Royal child who will be third in line to the throne takes time, and is not to be rushed 🙂

  3. lol well, I imagine they will probably be better than me. I would be the worst at choosing a name. Although I suppose with being royal it should be easier – their position should at least cut out half the names in the book, leaving just the ones with the classy ring. Plus, they could probably hire a team of advisers to help them find just the right one amidst their busy schedules (So, what do you do for a living? “I am the Royal baby namer!” Nice job.) But still, I would be forever at it. 🙂

%d bloggers like this: