Calis Beach and Fethiye Turkey Discussion Forum

General Topics => All things that have nothing to do with Turkey => Topic started by: poppy50 on July 22, 2013, 20:45:53 PM

Title: Royal baby Boy
Post by: poppy50 on July 22, 2013, 20:45:53 PM
It's a boy!  born 4.24pm and weighed 8lbs 6oz.   :D
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: Lotty on July 22, 2013, 21:08:47 PM
Wonderful news! History in the making.
After watching and waiting all day, I missed the moment because my hubby cut his leg and I was attending to his wounds! Lol! Cheers all! Hic.
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: echogirl1 on July 22, 2013, 21:15:13 PM
Hello Lotty  so pleased to know there is someone as excited as me by the news, wonder what they will call him, I fancy Louie after Charles's godfather Louie Mountbatten, but I expect they will settle for something like George or John.  Cheers
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: tiggsy on July 22, 2013, 21:32:55 PM
My money is on Richard. Yes Richard IV. Sounds good.
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: Scunner on July 22, 2013, 21:35:25 PM
I expect they will settle for something like George or John. 

My money's on Ringo
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: Lotty on July 22, 2013, 21:40:34 PM
Sting?
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: KKOB on July 22, 2013, 21:45:58 PM
Stavros ?
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: Lotty on July 22, 2013, 21:49:25 PM
Oh my hubby didn't get that, I was trying to be funny! Slurp . . .  Us women understand the pun. I love the name Louis, Prince Charles would be thrilled. I expect George or something, perhaps having Spencer among his many names.
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: Scunner on July 22, 2013, 21:57:38 PM
Frances Spencer
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: KKOB on July 22, 2013, 22:02:20 PM
L'il Wayne Windsor ?
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: Highlander on July 22, 2013, 22:06:11 PM
Cammy
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: echogirl1 on July 22, 2013, 22:06:40 PM
I fancy Louis Charles William  If I am any where near right you lot all owe me a large vodka aqnd tonic!!
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: KKOB on July 22, 2013, 22:09:35 PM
Yeah, right.
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: echogirl1 on July 22, 2013, 22:12:15 PM
Thanks for that I shall wait with bated breath!!
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: Jacqui Harvey on July 22, 2013, 22:39:35 PM
It will not be John.  The Royal Family stopped using this name after one John died and the other one, a son of Queen Mary and George V was born with mental health problems.  He was taken from home and keep in a cottage with a Nanny for years and he died young.  So the Royal Family consider John to be an unlucky name. Note that none of the male Royals have John in their names.
George seems favourite. 
Although a lot of Kings don't use their birth name when they become King.  Charles has said he will not be King Charles, as he considers the fact that one Charles was beheaded not a good omen.  He wants to be Edward.   The Queen's  Father was Albert, but became George as did Victoria's son Bertie (Albert) who became Edward.   
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: scorcher on July 22, 2013, 22:41:25 PM
Gordon - easy peasy !
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: usedbustickets on July 22, 2013, 23:21:31 PM
Bad enough that we are bombarded about this birth by the other sections of the media, in particular the lickspittle BBC, but now its started in my my island of sanity CBF..... Oh woh and thrice woh!!

I would like to see the press pick up and report on this event in their more usual reporting style..

IMMIGRANT FAMILY ADDS ANOTHER MOUTH TO FEED

German Greek immigrant family Saxe Coburg have added another child to its long list of family recipients of state handouts.  This follows their recent narrow escape from the government capping of benefits to £25k, and their fear that they would need to move out from their multi bedroomed palaces homes in and around Westminster in west London.

A former west London neighbour Mr Abu Aqata said from his Jordan prison cell, "This just shows how the country is going to the dogs.  My family have to suffer in a six bedroom home on the new capped benefits, whilst this lot get away with at least three west London homes and at least three homes outside of London on almost unlimited social security payments, and a nasty habit of dodging taxes where they can, it's a disgrace, and somebody from the DSS should be asked to explain the double standards applied to state handouts."

We did approach the pensioner head of the family, Phil The Greek, for comment, but he declined any comment other than to tell our gallant reporter to "sod orf".  Phil's eldest offspring said they were entitled to the payments, particularly since his mother had started to pay some tax on her multi million benefit payments.

Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: Highlander on July 22, 2013, 23:28:25 PM
Don't agree UBT but it was very amusing and I did enjoy reading it  :).
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: GordonA on July 23, 2013, 00:15:29 AM
Also very succinct and to the point. Well said Mr. Tickets. By the way, I hope the little fella is given the most popular name in the U.K. which is, believe it or not..................................................Mohammed !!
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: Menthol on July 23, 2013, 01:17:06 AM
usedbustickets - you are my kind of guy!  :-*

I'm not a royalist in any shape or form.

And perhaps 'they' should call him Mohammed - Prince Mo.

Inshallah.
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: Hamlet on July 23, 2013, 06:55:12 AM
Totally agree with UBT, Menthol - neither am I & I think I upset a few people in Uzumlu last night by stating my views on the birth especially when I refused to go online to find out the result, so be it! Gordon, somehow I don't think Mohammed is a very popular name with 'the firm' given the relationship they have with a certain Mr Fayed.  :o  8)
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: desmartinson on July 23, 2013, 08:34:14 AM
Congratulations to the happy couple  :)  :)  I have to say I find some of the comments on facebook and now some starting to appear on here very distasteful indeed. >:(
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: usedbustickets on July 23, 2013, 08:40:13 AM
Come on Des don't hide on this one what is that you find distasteful about any of the comments on this thread here on CBF??

Can't personally comment on any distasteful comments that might appear on Chimpbook, as i wear my non 'membership' of it as a badge of honour. ;D
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: thebillet on July 23, 2013, 08:44:58 AM
Well said UBT, and I do agree with your sentiments.
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: Jacqui Harvey on July 23, 2013, 10:13:35 AM
So, do we want President Cameron? or perhaps President Clegg or even worst President Blair?  For the people who don't want a Royal family, just what do we have in it's place?
I just heard that this new Royal Baby will boost the British economy by £240 million.
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: echogirl1 on July 23, 2013, 10:24:40 AM
Even though I am sure that some people may think some of the comments on this post are very funny, I love the Royal family, and they are good for the country, one of the few positive things going on here at the moment, look at the worlds press gathered outside the hospital.  This new baby gives me and a lot of other people a nice warm feeling, that makes a change from all the negative stuff we read about every day.
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: angela on July 23, 2013, 11:51:54 AM
Well I'm glad the little chap arrived safely (as do most babies), and I would rather read/hear good news than bad, but enough now, it only needs saying once!!
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: usedbustickets on July 23, 2013, 12:01:24 PM
So, do we want President Cameron? or perhaps President Clegg or even worst President Blair?  For the people who don't want a Royal family, just what do we have in it's place?
I just heard that this new Royal Baby will boost the British economy by £240 million.

Oh yawn not the old President Blair myth again.  You don't need a President to replace the royal family, we already have a political system that is in part based upon a Parliamentary democracy, get rid of the Royal Family and the unelected House of Lords and the royal patronage that goes with that nonsense and then we can really claim to have a full parliamentary democracy.  As to the nonsense that this child will generate a boost to the british economy of £240 million, where did they get that figure from, and more particularly how will the child will boost the economy.  Heard the same nonsense spoken about the Olympics and the economic legacy it would leave, and no one really believes it any longer.

Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: usedbustickets on July 23, 2013, 12:22:55 PM
Even though I am sure that some people may think some of the comments on this post are very funny, I love the Royal family, and they are good for the country, one of the few positive things going on here at the moment, look at the worlds press gathered outside the hospital.  This new baby gives me and a lot of other people a nice warm feeling, that makes a change from all the negative stuff we read about every day.
Not sure what you mean by saying that they are good for the country, or is that one of those things that people glibly say, but doesn't really stand up, but I can be persuaded by examples of the good that they are doing - whilst being paid by the tax payer.  I certainly do not think it is an indication of good that the world's press is in attendance at anything, let alone something related to the royals, there was enough of them around to make Diana Spencers life a bloody misery.

I don't blame them personally, but they are a very dysfunctional family, in much the same way as other families who have for generations lived on benefits.  Scrapping the royal family and the political power that goes with it, could be as good for them as it would be for the UK and its people.
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: Lotty on July 23, 2013, 12:47:25 PM
Well I for one am really really happy for them! I hope all is well, just heard that they may be staying in hospital for longer, maybe tomorrow.
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: mary62 on July 23, 2013, 12:50:24 PM
Well I for one am really really happy for them! I hope all is well, just heard that they may be staying in hospital for longer, maybe tomorrow.
At the cost of over £6000 a night they can afford it.
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: mog on July 23, 2013, 13:49:15 PM
it is said that there are 2 things that people should never argue about, one being polotics and the other,  religion. (2 things i love to argue about).
We should now add a 3rd to the list. "The Monarchy" (by the way i'm with UBT on this one)
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: Menthol on July 23, 2013, 14:27:19 PM
Yes, Mog, they are the three things never to mention if you want things to stay civilised and friendly.

However, it's a far more interesting place when people do not think in exactly the same way.

And I LOVE discussions about politics and religion, but not on here perhaps    ;)

Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: Colwyn on July 23, 2013, 15:01:08 PM
This is the most important event in the history of the universe since the Big Bang. The royal household is currently expecting the arrival of three magi from the East - but they have not been allowed through UK Border Control. Shepherds will not be accepted as a substitute because they are too common and smell of sheep. As Jacqui has said the new prince is expected to cost the country £240 million.

The BBC had a one hour phone-in programme this morning discussing whether the BBC is spending too much time discussing this story. I was waiting for it to get on to some real news: but it didn't. Was the infant conceived in Calis? Is he expected to visit soon? If there is no connection with Calis - what the hell is this drivel doing in this section?

Thanks to UBT and his supporters for attempting to regain some sanity.

Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: villain on July 23, 2013, 15:13:59 PM
(http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sites/default/files/images/baby_private_eye.png)
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: desmartinson on July 23, 2013, 16:07:48 PM
As I said earlier U B T and supporters, distasteful indeed.   ;)
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: CleopatrasAsp on July 23, 2013, 16:09:15 PM
I think, thanks to the influence the late Princess Diana had on her boys and their dealings with the public, that the Monarchy has changed for the better.  The ''bitching'' on here would be better directed at the sycophantic media, whose approach to reporting the proceedings is positively vomit-inducing!!!
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: mog on July 23, 2013, 16:20:46 PM
Don't think the royalists on here appreciate your sense of humour UBT.
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: scorcher on July 23, 2013, 17:48:00 PM
We Brits have always been known for our support of the underdog so I feel some of you are being a little unfair on the minority, but noisy Republican posters. Just imagine if you will how they are all feeling when they try to get their views heard when facing such impossible odds. Even the media world wide would seem to be against them. I've noted the opinions from the spokesman of the Bristol Ultras on the unfairness of our long established taxation system but what can one do ? We have also had some lovely input from , and I can only hazard a guess here, a retired bus conductor from the Republican redoubt of Uzumlu ( can't be ar$ed with Yesil bit ). We've also been entertained by the Hallamshire poster just recently joined who is jolly inquisitive and is racking up posts at a truly wondrous rate. So ( sorry Colwyn ) to all you lone furrow ploughers I can only wish you well in your efforts and I'll see you all at the barriers - Pip pip !x

Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: Menthol on July 23, 2013, 18:04:10 PM
I feel a little chastised - more for the fact that I appear to be spending far too much time on this here forum (it's true I do!).

I am right in thinking you are referring to me with the nosy old bag Hallamshire poster bit, scorcher?  ;D  If not, then it goes to prove even further what a heightened sense of my own importance I have.  :-\

Champagne Communism - here I come!
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: mercury on July 24, 2013, 18:24:00 PM
Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge....
Title: Royal baby Boy
Post by: Rimms on July 24, 2013, 18:24:35 PM
Prince George II
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: angela on July 25, 2013, 16:00:20 PM
or as they said in today's papers, Boy George, love it!! 
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: Jacqui Harvey on July 25, 2013, 17:21:55 PM
Prince Dod... In Scotland when your name is George (for some strange reason) you get called Dod or Doddy.
We have a local department store called George Donald's but everyone called it Doddy Donald's
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: mary62 on July 25, 2013, 17:57:35 PM
His initials are G A L. Great Another Layabout. >:(
Title: Royal baby Boy
Post by: Rimms on July 25, 2013, 18:03:11 PM
Prince Dod... In Scotland when your name is George (for some strange reason) you get called Dod or Doddy.
We have a local department store called George Donald's but everyone called it Doddy Donald's

Prince Dodgy Rimms (it has a certain scouse charm)
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: Colwyn on July 25, 2013, 19:04:44 PM
I don't know why they have named him after one of Donald Duck's nephews - but I suppose it is better than Huey or Dewey. Calling him after a Greek (gay?) soldier is obvious - his Great Great Grandfather was a Greek soldier but his role in invading Turkey 1919-1922 didn't go very well (he shouldn't have taken on Ataturk).
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: scorcher on July 25, 2013, 21:36:23 PM
Well at least he wasn't named after a bay Colwyn !
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: Scunner on July 25, 2013, 21:39:18 PM
Who says?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_George_Bay
Title: Re: Royal baby Boy
Post by: GordonA on July 25, 2013, 21:42:38 PM
Dodi ?? Now that's one in the eye for the "royals", Mr. Fayed jnr. rides again !!
  ;) :angel: