Names Searched Right Now:
Page 20 of 46 FirstFirst ... 10 18 19 20 21 22 30 ... LastLast
Results 96 to 100 of 230

Thread: Royal Baby

  1. #96
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,709
    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.

  2. #98
    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

  3. #100
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    2,246
    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 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.
    They could try (and possibly get the proposal shot down by HM), but there's a 99% chance that they wont. The BRF is basically the family that follows tradition to the nines out of all the royal families (maybe just with the exception of the Japanese Imperial Family), and I very much doubt they're gonna choose something out of the ordinary for a future King or Queen. I don't know about any meteor swamps, but I'm quite certain that there would be quite a hullabaloo if they pulled a Victoria and Daniel and named their child something like Estelle
    Zelia • Twenty • Film, history and royalty connoisseur • I have a personal blog and one about royalty
    Exporting old Danish names, Greenlandic names and Greenlandic sibling names
    Henry Ásgeirr Edmund • Amaury Charles Théoden "Theo" • Alexander Adelin Lórien "Sasha" • Asa Edouard Ivik
    Cosima Ingrid Zenobia "Mimi" • Johanna Ivalo Galadriel "Anna" • Gaia Margaret Undómiel • Asta Catherine Françoise

    And for the moment: Atticus Aksel Inigo • Aviaaja Cleopatra Hero "Avi" • Fabiola Agnes Lúthien

  4. #102
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by charlieandperry1 View Post
    Why was she not expected to become queen? She was the only child of George IV and was next in line to the throne.

    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!
    When Princess Charlotte of Wales was born and named, it would be widely expected that she would have a brother who would have displaced her in the line of succession. It wasn't until years later that if became obvious that she would be her father's only child.

    Same thing for her cousin Princess Victoria — not only would she have been expected to have a brother, but on top of that she had two uncles ahead of her in the line of succesion who could have produced children at any point in time. In fact, in the years after her birth her uncle William (IV) had a daughter (who given the family's lack of heirs was appropriately named Elizabeth, a "regal" name) and 3 sons who all died in infancy. It was telling of Victoria's litttle dynastical status that her parents were forbidden to give their daughter a queenly name (Charlotte and Elizabeth were their choices) and had to pick something "foreign" and unusual.

    If William and Kate's child is a girl, it will be the first time in history that a Princess will be expected to be Queen at birth.
    Arabella, Thibault, Sophia, Alfred, Eleanor, Rémi, Charlotte, Achille, Olivia, Clement, Elizabeth, Frederick, Maud, Benedict, Adèle.

  5. #104
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,276
    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 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--.
    They will use a traditional name because the price W&K pay for their exceptionally priviledged life and social position is to sacrifice "personal taste" for a sense of duty and respect for the traditions they are supposed to represent. They will be naming the future head of state and (probably) the head of the Anglican Church — the name has to be something appropriate to that reality and will be used in very formal contexts, since that's what the child will be referred to for her entire life. The same way the Pope can't be named "Drake" and you wouldn't officially refer to the President of the USA as "Barry", you can't have a "Queen Rebecca" (which isn't even a Christian saint's name). Like we've said, they'll have much more freedom to name the younger children.

    When the Swedish Crown Princess and Prince named their daughter Estelle it was a pretty big controversy in Sweden, until they saved face by coming up with an obscure relative with that (foreign, non traditional) name — and the Swedish monarchy is nowhere near as important and traditional as the British.
    Arabella, Thibault, Sophia, Alfred, Eleanor, Rémi, Charlotte, Achille, Olivia, Clement, Elizabeth, Frederick, Maud, Benedict, Adèle.

Posting Permissions

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