Membership is FREE – with unlimited access to all features, tools, and discussions. Premium accounts get benefits like banner ads and newsletter exposure. ✅ Signature links are now free for all. 🚫 No AI-generated (LLM) posts allowed. Share your own thoughts and experience — accounts may be terminated for violations.
When I seen the kinggeorge.com name I thought that was odd to have just been registered. When checking the whois it was registered in 1996. Maybe the Daily Mail need to learn how to use the whois.
A better article would be, cybersquatters waste £10 on crap names that won't sell or make money.
1) Pathetic cybersquatting by chancers racing for a quick buck off of the new prince's name (they don't deserve to be considered part of the "domain industry")
2) Inability of the writer to distinguish between domains with many legitimate uses, registered years ago, and domains clearly registered as per 1)
and I'm wondering how much the media have made out of the birth, the pregnancy, the marriage..... Scandals, door stopping, intrusive photo's, toe sucking! The pcc files are full of complaints from the Royal Family.
Yes these people are not domainers i had a few emails over the last few days
I have a newly registered domain called hrhprincegeorgeofcambridge - very topical of course now....this is the new Royal babies precise title. Would this be worth very much do you think?
This person thinks its entrepreneurialship saying he had a few names like this....
It really doesnt help with 123-REG telling people to register them...