Results 96 to 100 of 239
Thread: Royal Baby
June 18th, 2013 03:41 PM #96Senior Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
The more I think about it, the more I feel the baby will be named after a previous monarch — if you look at the lists of British royals since William I, new regnal names have only been introduced under pretty exceptional circumstances.
Monarchs who were "The First" of their names:
- Henry I : a younger son, not expected to become king
- Stephen I: a grandson through a female line, not expected to become king
- Matilda: a daughter, not expected to become queen
- Richard I: a younger son, not expected to become king
- John: a younger son, not expected to become king
* Edward I: given his unusual name after St Edward
- Mary I: a daughter, not expected to become queen
- Elizabeth I: a daughter, not expected to become queen
- James I: Scottish, not expected to become king of England
- Charles I: a younger son, not expected to become king
- Anne: a daughter, not expected to become king
- George I: German, not expected to become king of England
- Victoria: daughter of a younger son, not expected to become queen
Heirs to the throne would have been "The First":
- Robert: eldest son of the first king, named after his paternal grandfather.
- Eustace: French, not expected to become king of England
* Alphonso: named after his Spanish maternal grandfather.
- Sophia: German, not expected to become king
- Frederick: German, not expected to become king
- Charlotte: daughter, not expected to become queen
* Albert Edward: named after his father, reigned as Edward VII
- Albert Victor: his son, likely to have reigned under his middle name of Edward, too (his first names were imposed by Queen Victoria, but he went by Eddy).
- Albert: younger brother, not expected to become king, reigned as George VI.
So you see that, in the last 1000 years or so, there have only been four instances when the direct heir to the throne was given a "new" name. I don't think William and Catherine will go against this precedence. However, they are likely to follow the royal tradition to introduce new names (or honour family members) with younger children, if they have any.
My money is on Prince George.Mary-Charlotte. Emma-Beatrice. Grace-Louise. Claire-Catherine. Victoria-Lily.
John-Henry. Max-Frederick. Remy-Charles. Leo-George. Louis-Theodore.
June 19th, 2013 11:25 AM #98Senior Member
I don't think William and Catherine will go against this precedence.Sorry for bad English, I am from other country
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
June 19th, 2013 12:22 PM #100
George IV and was next in line to the throne.
Queen. The RF was in a state of panic at one stage as it was looking unlikely that there would be any heirs. George IV's only child died after childbirth, 2 years before Vic was born (had she survived, we would likely have had a Queen Charlotte- another 'new' name for a monarch, though there'd already been a Queen Charlotte, w/o George III), Prince Frederick had long since separated from his wife and had no children and William IV could not produce any healthy, legitimate heirs.
I have a book somewhere which looks into why George IV was so intent on naming her after Alexander I of Russia, but I can't find it! I'm sure it said that he wished she'd reign as Queen Alexandrina. I'm glad she went with Victoria though!
June 19th, 2013 01:42 PM #102Senior Member
We're forming opinions based on nearly a 1000 years of royal-baby-naming tradition.
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
I am deeply sure all these women are convinced they will choose some deeply traditional names just because they adore deeply traditional names and not because some baby-naming tradition which may be important as yesterday fi--.Sorry for bad English, I am from other country
June 19th, 2013 02:45 PM #104
Queen has a sort of veto power where she has to formally approve of names, just like she has to approve of marriages. She's hardly going to approve a Princess Rebecca.
I think there's a difference between guessing names you'd like to see on a future monarch and making an educated guess based on fact. You can hope that they'll plump for somtheing like Rebecca, Amy, Jacob (or anything with no history of use within the RF whatsoever) but all evidence (from previous naming patterns, history, the fact the couple seem traditional, the Queen's veto thingy, bookmakers' stats, thoughts from 'insiders' like Jennie Bond etc) points to something classic, traditional and previously-used.
I remember when Edward's son was born a few years back- there was a furore over his name but 'royal officials' assured that it would be something dignified and non-controversial. And he was the second child of the third son, not the future monarch!
In the unlikely event they do pick something new; no there won't be a 'meteor shower' on London. I don't think anyone ever said there would be. We are having fun guessing! And it's quite important to royal nerds like me