Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by taf2002, Dec 3, 2012.
It may be addressed up-thread.....but I assume the Queen issues a list from which to choose?
Victoria issued a directive that all of her descendants be given the names Victoria or Albert somewhere in their names which is where that came from for a short time. It stopped pretty quickly as only Harry, Andrew and his daughter Eugenie have the names in the current generation of British royals.
The current Queen likely would not have been named Elizabeth in deference to the (previously) one and only monarch had it been known there was even a possibility that her uncle would abdicate/not have an heir. She was pushed to rule as Alexandra or Mary because of that, which is why I do not think there will be a Princess Victoria (unless it is Harry's third child born after William's fourth...or otherwise far from the throne). Victoria herself was not given a traditional royal name as it was expected that someone among her uncles would succeed in producing a male heir.
And it has clearly been true for now three generations that names are not repeated. Elizabeth was the last to be named (first name) for a living relative. It could be the Queen's preference and, if so, it will likely be adhered to. And, again, the traditions/rules are very different for the first child and direct heir than the fifth child and fourth son (in the case of Prince George of Kent) or the daughter of the second son during the period of male primogeniture.
None of that is to say they might not surprise the world. But I think the surprises will be when baby #2 comes along. Or the children of Harry, Eugenie and Beatrice. Peter Phillips' daughters are named Savannah and Isla. I don't think that would have happened in a million years if he and they were not comfortably distant from the throne.
On a totally different note (and perhaps a less controversial one...), regardless of the traditions/restrictions around naming her baby, Kate should just be happy that the requirement of having government ministers at the birth has long since ended:
No, she doesn't issue any kind of list, but I do believe she can approve or disapprove whatever names are chosen. At least the first name anyway as it will more than likely be the child's later regnal name. After that I think William and Kate may choose anywhere from two to six names. William and Prince Charles have four names, but the Queen only had three as she was never expected to be monarch. Her uncle Edward had six names.
I'm still hoping for Alexandra or Charlotte if it's a girl or George or Alexander if a boy.
I seem to remember rumors that the Queen vetoed a name choice of Prince Andrew and Sarah's. I googled around about the births of their children and all I could find was that it was several days before Beatrice's name was announced which may have led to rumors? Anyone remember anything?
Interesting fact about names: since 1066 there have been nine names for Kings and six for Queens. They are: William, Henry, Stephen, Richard, John, Edward, James, Charles and George for Kings and Matilda, Jane, Anne, Mary, Elizabeth, and Victoria for Queens.
If the baby is not given one of those names as a first name, you can bet on one for a middle name perhaps with the hope/intention that it be his/her regnal name.
(Queen's names including only those who were monarchs, not consorts)
I would like Alexandra for a girl... and although I like Alexander for a boy, it would not happen...too many Tsar Alexanders in the past.
I would love a future King Arthur, but no one would ever go there, unfortunately.
I remember that it was newsworthy that the Queen had to give special permission for Anne to name her daughter "Zara" when she was born, because it was so unusual.
i dont know if there is any truth to it, but i remember reading she wanted octavia for her dob 8/8/88
Annabelle is the one that I've heard was rejected by the Queen, but I don't have a source on hand.
Although they quote the Sun, so you might want to take with a grain of salt
Jane - poor Jane (Grey). Puppet of her parents - totally unsuited to try to ursurp the throne. Doubt Jane would be amongst the options.
Jane would be one of those potential surprises. As would Matilda. But Matilda was the first female to rule (though the history there is murky) so it would be a nice bookend to give her name to the first daughter to benefit from the end of male primogeniture.
I just can't see Victoria, either. Would they really want to make Queen Victoria become Victoria I? I really can't see it.
There are also many rumors that Diana wanted to name one son John (for her father) and was not allowed due to the bad fortune of previous Johns in the royal family.
Other interesting suggestions I have seen around the web are Eleanor and Louis.
They did make Queen Elizabeth Elizabeth I and while her reign didn't last as long as Victoria's, wasn't she, historically speaking, more... I don't know, important even?
But, as someone mentioned before, I think it would be likely they won't choose the name because there's Crown Princess Viktoria.
The current Elizabeth wasn't expected to be queen and would not have been if not for the abdication.
Well, personally, I like Deborah (which is my name
Although AxelAnnie has a nice ring to it. It will be exciting to find out the name. What a momentous decision....and what a secret to keep. Just as an aside, my eldest was born in Ascot, Heatherwood Hospital. Our home was within walking distance. She was to be named Christina. My dearly beloved ran home after she was born (to get some Dom Perignon - obviously a very long time ago). There were some friends at the house. They: "What did she have" He: "A girl!" They: "What did you name her?" He: "Susan". Huh? He had some 'splainin' to do when he got back to the hospital. She is still Susan, BTW. Was fairly prescient of him, though.....we later all became Jews....so Christina would have been very difficult to explain at their Jewish Day School LOL.
Yes, she would have been, just not until her uncle's death in 1972. Her father would not have been king though, as he predeceased his brother. She would not have become Queen if Edward had married a suitable woman and had children, of course, but there is no guarantee he would have become a father in any case (there is a theory that a childhood case of mumps had left him sterile ).
But no one knew that Edward would abdicate or that he may have been infertile at the time Elizabeth was born. It was fully expected that he would marry an appropriate consort and have children. And never mind that there was even expectation once the abdication happened that her parents would try for a boy. She was simply not named with any notion that she would be queen one day.
She was also pushed to choose one of her middle names for a regnal name when her father died and refused.
(Also it very well may have been Wallis who was not fertile...but that is another discussion entirely.)
Well, given the circumstances, would it have mattered who was infertile. The issue would not have been accepted.
Oh, I agree with you that at the time of Elizabeth's birth, it was considered unlikely that she would be queen one day (and of course, had she had a younger brother, as was not unlikely at the time he would have superseded her in the succession). But she was the senior of her generation at the time of her birth, and the PoW was already 32 and had never shown any interest in a suitable woman (all his mistresses had been married women up to that point). It must have occurred to people that it was at least a possibility she MIGHT reign one day.
But she was clearly given her mother's name (Along with her paternal grandmother and great grandmother's), and not with an idea that they were giving her a queen's name, but to honour her mother.
I don't recall reading that the Queen was ever pushed to change her name- and I can't think why anyone would do so. IIRC, she was asked which name she wanted for her regnal name, and she replied "my own, of course!"
I think Wallis probably was infertile (or she just never wanted children, but that wasn't as easy back then as it is now), as there were no pregnancies (that we know of) in any of her 3 marriages.
She was encouraged to choose one of her middle names. I have read that in two biographies.
And a different regnal name was not without precedence. George was her father's fourth name; his first name was Albert. There is, in fact, some speculation that Charles might choose to rule as George VII. I think a change would be odd, in part due to the longevity of his mother's reign making him known for 60+ years by his first name.
I have to add, though, the fact that the Prince of Wales was 32 was no reason to assume he would not do his duty and produce an heir. His preference for being a playboy wasn't really an issue. I have read that he was even encouraged to marry an appropriate consort, in spite of Wallis, as keeping a mistress would not be an issue. And as you noted, with Elizabeth being a firstborn, there was no reason to not assume that her parents might have a son as well. In the same bios, it is noted that her parents were encouraged, when her father became king, to have another child in the hope it would be a boy. Her father, however, had great confidence in her future ability to rule and clearly he was not wrong.
Honestly, I hope that if Baby Cambridge is a girl, she is not burdened with the cumbersomely large shoes of being named Elizabeth or Victoria. A name that has not previously been held by a regnal queen (as opposed to a consort) would serve her better. And I also hope they do not burden her with her late paternal grandmother's name. Names of past consorts or princesses such as Charlotte, Alexandra, Eleanor, or Helena would be lovely. Or, if they wish to honor a past regnal queen, Victoria's first name of Alexandrina would be a nice choice.
I would vote for this one .. it's near and dear to my heart.
I wonder why? What value does Alexandra or Mary have over Elizabeth, certainly one of the most successful and admired and longest reigning monarchs in British history?
I also agree it would be very odd of Charles to choose a new name, and even if he tries something new, the media and his subjects and people around the world are likely to continue to call him Charles.
Fixed it for you. [/huge Elizabeth I fan]
I meant one - I was questioning why anyone would encourage the princess who would become Elizabeth II to choose one of her other less illustrious names instead of her first name. As a princess, she shared her mother's name; as a queen, she pairs herself with one of the greatest monarchs of England. If it was her choice against advice, then I applaud her wisdom, and her making a stand on something so important right from the beginning of her reign.
Ah, I see. I thought you were talking about naming the new baby Elizabeth after II.
Glad we agree on I though!
I have read that both Elizabeth and Margaret Rose were born by caesarean section. At that time, women were discouraged from having more than 2 C Sections because of the chance of a ruptured uterus along the incision line. So there was no chance at all that Bertie/George and Elizabeth would have undertaken another pregnancy after he became King. I believe there was also a bit of difficulty in achieving a pregnancy, due to a certain physical abnormality on the part of Bertie/George.
I would agree with this- I'd like to know who made the suggestions, and if there was any actual "pressure" or if it was merely posed as a question- i.e. you don't have to use your first name you know?
And why on earth would anyone argue that either of her other names be any better? You could just as easily argue that had she taken the name Mary and ruled as Mary lll it would have brought up memories of Mary l (Bloody Mary) whose husband (A Philip by the way!) helped bring in the persecution and burning of Protestants, or Mary ll- a sweet woman, but essentially a cypher. And Alexandra- well Queen Alexandra was popular, but hardly the sharpest tool in the shed, and of course there were recent memories of her cousin Tsarina Alexandra and her terrible fate in Russia.
And of course there were precedents for not ruling with ones first name. Queen Victoria wanted her eldest son to rule as King Albert Edward, but once she died, he had his own ideas and went with the more English and traditional name. George Vl- well it was important after the abdication to emphasize tradition and continuity, so he went with one of his middle names instead of Albert.
For fun...via Twitter:
Well then, if baby Cambridge isn't D'estinee Nevaeh Unique Madysyn (my first suggestion) she should be, using those suggestions- Boudicca Frideswide Gladys Myrtle (has a ring to it, doesn't it- Princess Boo for short?)
According to , it is very bad form for a private secretary to pressure the heiress presumptive to choose a different name as her regnal name lest quickly turn into .
So, I'll make an educated guess an say that no one pressured her and that certain authors or their "sources" made things up because they wanted to sound knowledgeable and interesting.
Pressure about the baby's name is just a preview of the garbage that Kate is going to be put through, apparently:
Will she (or her nanny) allow baby to cry it out or will she/they tend to every whimper? Will she put the baby on its back to prevent SIDS or will she be horribly irresponsible and put it to sleep on its head??!!! Will she get all recommended vaccinations on time or will she delay, or will she not do them at all and go on to campaign against vaccinations? Will she feed the baby food made in Britain or give it undercooked beef doomed to give the child mad cow disease? Will the child wear organic all-natural clothing made in Britain or fake polyester made by 2-year-olds in a Burmese sweatshop? fer cryin' out loud. . . like all other mothers, she's gonna have a LOT of advice & criticism to tune out--more than most moms. I hope she and William have a LOT of strength to tell everyone to shut the heck up and let them make their own decisions regarding parenting.
I say they go for Frideswide Boadicea. Ain't nobody gonna mess with Queen Fridey Bo.
Wasn't it King Friday, Prince Tuesday .... I can't remember the queen's name.
Oh but, Alexandria sounds so Regal, doesn't it.
Poor Queen Sara Saturday. And it was King Friday XIII.
Hopefully, it will be a bit of comfort to new moms around the world that while they are getting unsolicited advice, at least it doesn't come in the form of newspaper op-eds.
Lots of Diana pictures - from babyhood to her last day of life.
Yuck. Traditional names are nicest. And it's probably because the only Estelle I know is a lady of a certain age, but "Estelle" sounds "old-woman" to me. Even though I rationally know at some point all elderly people were young, I can't imagine naming a child a name that sound elderly to me.
Names I can see NOT using: David (the Queen probably still has mixed feelings at best about her Uncle David), Albert (despite that one being the family name to end all family names), James (too Stuart), Charles as a first name. (There's some issue about whether Charles, Prince of Wales will rule as King Charles III as that's said to be bad luck--supposedly, the story goes, Charles III will mean the end of the monarchy.) For girls, if they really did try to nudge HM away from Elizabeth, to keep Elizabeth I unique, I bet "Victoria" is off the table, too, even if that's a really obvious one to honor. Diana is probably a no for reasons stated.
I could see George and Philip being in there (for George VI and Prince Philip), Charlotte, Frances, Elizabeth and Alexandra in as middle names....Arthur is another one that hasn't been used in a while, likewise John (though there's only been one King John and while he gets a bad rap more than deserved, he wasn't very popular, though there's also David and Bertie's brother the "lost prince"...)
I took a look at the 'very British names' and I have always loved the name Olivia. No pressure Princess Catherine!!
Is Lettice a common name over there right now. I kinda like that name too.
Separate names with a comma.