What's in a name? Apparently quite a lot. Stevens are straightforward, Jerrys are usually funny, and Johns are often anal retentive. We've all known kids who were teased mercilessly in school for their ill-chosen appellations. Especially if you were named something like Sylvester or Percival. Absolutely fine in Olympia. Not so good if you lived in Appalachia.
Percival is not a good Appalachian appellation.
So the world was abuzz awhile about the new future King of England. I don't think they should call him a "future king" by the way. It assumes too much. What if the future doesn't work out? Maybe England finally pitches the monarchy. Or the little blue-blooded bundle of joy decides he wants to pitch for the Kansas City Royals.
Prince is more like it. But it can't just be Prince. He has to have a name that he won't be formerly known as too. The world went through this consternation quite recently when the new Pope was choosing his papal moniker.
My friend Rick said we probably shouldn't hope the prince will be named Travis. Even less should we hope for Clint. Prince Clint. It does have a tough no-nonsense ring to it. Likewise I thought we could rule out Bubba.
I guessed they'd dip into the historic well. Like with Charles and William and Elizabeth II. Which meant Edward, James, George, or Richard. I voted for Richard. Prince Rick sounded cool. But it was George.
Personally, I was hoping for Francis, like the Pope. With a Pope and a King both named Francis, my own father's name would once again return to legitimacy. Didn’t happen though. Maybe because people shorten Francis to Frank and Frank is another word for a French guy.
Even with French fries the English have a chip on their shoulder.
America, ya gotta love it.