Every royal name has some negative historical baggage. It's impossible to find any that don't.
Little George will create his own history.
Few bear the odure of the Georges - here's English poet, Walter Savage Landor's famous and much-quoted lines (written when Victoria was Queen)
George the First was always reckoned
Vile, but viler George the Second;
And what mortal ever heard
Any good of George the Third?
When from earth the Fourth descended
(God be praised!) the Georges ended.
I will agree that, despite the justified criticisms of the truly woeful Georges, George V, albeit a stern parent and a strict disciplinarian, was a successful king: he's the first monarch who ever showed that he cared more for his subjects than he did for the status quo, himself, the aristocracy, or ingrained, establishment government. Many of the so-called 'upper classes' never forgave him (and some still don't to this day) for his obvious partiality for doing the right thing by ' the people', as he saw it. Given his role in helping to dismantle the inherited power of the House of Lords (capitulating to 'the herd' it was called by some) people everywhere should celebrate his commitment to and understanding of the real meaning of Kingship. Hopefully, Baby Cambridge will have something of the steel grit his great-great-great-grandfather, but then, he's only but one of the baby's 32 antecedents.
Still, a new prince for a still new century remains a cause for celebration, whatever his name. It is not, however, contingent on me to like it, nor to refrain from so saying, particularly in a forum where the majority do, and say so.
Vive la diffèrence, I suggest.