Names Searched Right Now:

Category: royal name

posted by: Nook of Names View all posts by this author
royal names

With speculation already swirling around the possible name(s) of the next royal child and with Victoria surfacing once again as a possibility, we were inspired to take a look at what K. M Sheard of Nook of Names had to say about it the first time around.

It is a little ironic that Victoria would now be considered a very traditional and conventional choice for a royal baby.

That wasn’t true when Victoria was named; Victoria — Latin for “victory” — was a rare name in Britain at the time, although it had been in use since the sixteenth century, one of the names plucked from Classical Antiquity. For to the Romans, Victoria was the personification of victory, and worshipped as a Goddess.

Why did Victoria receive such a name? Because that’s what her mother was called. She was Marie Louise Viktoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfield.

It wasn’t actually Queen Victoria’s first name, either. That was Alexandrina, after Tsar Alexander I of Russia.

Read More

reese

So….2,449 people named their baby girls Reese last year. Which means that upon meeting those 2,449 little girls, almost everyone for the rest of their lives is going to say, Reese? You mean R-E-E-S-E? As in Reese Witherspoon?

If you name your baby Reese and you’re NOT a Legally Blonde maniac, you’re going to have some ‘splaining to do. Because names like Reese — and Aaliyah and Ashton and Miley and Penn — are so closely tied to one celebrity that people can’t help but think that choosing the name amounts to major fandom.

And thousands of parents every year choose names that are inspired by celebrities.

In fact at this very moment, an untold number of new parents in Britain are waiting to hear the royal baby name so they can adopt it for their own already-born children.

So our question of the week is: Can you imagine you’d be one of them?

Read More