Names Searched Right Now:
Page 20 of 48 FirstFirst ... 10 18 19 20 21 22 30 ... LastLast
Results 96 to 100 of 239

Thread: Royal Baby

  1. #96
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    932
    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.
    * Arthur
    - 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.
    Bertrand -bertie-, Wilfred, Léon, Axel, Cuthbert -cubby-, Maxentius, Aubrey, Phoebus, John-Henry.
    Émilienne, Livia, Annabella -abbey-, Maud, Rosamund, Kimborough, Clemency, Elizabeth-Charlotte.

  2. #98
    I don't think William and Catherine will go against this precedence.
    Why? Do you know them personally?
    Sorry for bad English, I am from other country

  3. #100
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,958
    Quote Originally Posted by sugarplumfairy View Post
    - Charlotte: daughter, not expected to become queen
    Why was she not expected to become queen? She was the only child of George IV and was next in line to the throne.


    Quote Originally Posted by sugarplumfairy View Post
    - Victoria: daughter of a younger son, not expected to become queen
    It was very much expected that she would become 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!


    Quote Originally Posted by theclocktowerofjoy View Post
    Why? Do you know them personally?
    That's a bit of a silly thing to ask. Of course no one knows them personally. We're forming opinions based on nearly a 1000 years of royal-baby-naming tradition.
    William ♠ Thomas ♠ Peter ♠ Henry ~ Rose ♠ Alice ♠ Ivy ♠ Lowenna
    Mowesi ~ Henwyn Kernewek ~ Mebyon

  4. #102
    We're forming opinions based on nearly a 1000 years of royal-baby-naming tradition.
    That doesn't mean a thing if they want to call her daughter Rebecca, they could call her Rebecca. But your guess is good as mine and I just wanted to point that maybe baby-naming tradition break will not cause meteor swamp on London, so it's not important so much.

    Also
    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

  5. #104
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,958
    Quote Originally Posted by theclocktowerofjoy View Post
    That doesn't mean a thing if they want to call her daughter Rebecca, they could call her Rebecca.
    But they won't/can't. As mentioned before, the 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


    Quote Originally Posted by theclocktowerofjoy View Post
    Also 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--.
    I don't really understand this. What women? Us? Kate Middleton?
    William ♠ Thomas ♠ Peter ♠ Henry ~ Rose ♠ Alice ♠ Ivy ♠ Lowenna
    Mowesi ~ Henwyn Kernewek ~ Mebyon

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •