Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by taf2002, Dec 3, 2012.
I doubt it- while he would almost certainly have at least one of those names in the mix- that's pretty much his grandfather's exact name (Charles Philip Arthur George). It won't be that similar.
Arthur is a nice name and it hasn't been used as a first name in a while. Perhaps Arthur Henry Philip James?
Per one article I read, Arthur is currently a pretty popular name in Britain. But somehow, given the King Arthur legends, I just don't see it as a first name. And the article I linked points out that royal children are rarely given first names of living monarchs or other living royal relatives so that rules out several first names especially for boys: Charles, Henry, Edward, James, Phillip, Andrew, Michael...and Elizabeth and Anne for girls.
I would love it if they would go way back and pick something like Edmund or Matilda. But not so far back that we have Prince Aethelred.
Other thank the legendary one, the only Arthur that comes to mind is Henry VIII's older brother, who was supposed to be king but died before his father Henry VII did. He was also married to Catherine of Aragon, and after he died, she hung around until Henry was old enough and then married him. Doesn't seem like a prime choice to me.
I read that article, but a lot of it seems to be along the lines of sports betting - playing at numbers to guess the odds, but still guesses. Traditions are being broken now, and while I'm sure that the Queen must approve the name and has had a lot of input, I think we might see some breaking with tradition too, with her full approval.
The Queen has, throughout her reign, struck a very careful balance between changing with the times and maintaining and solidifying tradition. Somehow, I think the name of a future monarch is going to land in the maintaining and solidifying tradition side.
Victoria could have been a good choice, but since there's already Crown Princess Victoria, I guess not.
Considering that most of the previously used male names are already taken within the current royal family, they'll either have to go with George, pick a name that someone already has, or look well in to the past. Er... Stephen? I can't see them naming a boy Richard or John.
It would be much more efficient if they had something like the Danish tradition of alternating names.
Given the continuing controversy over Richard III I don't think they want to touch that one either
I do agree it will be at least somewhat traditional - no Tiffany for example! - but I think there might be a little nudge that reflects the modernization the Queen has been gradually putting into place, that will most certainly continue by the time William takes the throne. They have been very welcoming to Kate, putting her in solid position of prominence from the very beginning, and I think she will have some say in naming her children, as will William of course - they respect their position though, so I'm sure we won't see a Beatrice or Eugenie either.
But is the article correct?
The future George VI and his wife, Elizabeth, named their eldest daughter Elizabeth .
The future George V and his wife, Mary, named two of their children George and Mary.
The future Edward VII, christened Albert Edward, and his wife, Alexandra, named their eldest son Albert.
Queen Victoria and her husband, Prince Albert, named their two eldest children Victoria and Albert (i.e., Albert Edward, later Edward VII).
George III and his wife, Charlotte, named their eldest son George and their eldest daughter Charlotte.
It appears that the article is basing its analysis on the Queen's generation and those of her children and grandchildren. But that doesn't mean the Cambridges will follow suit.
From a today.com article: "Odds are, the newest heir to the throne, the soon-to-be born first child of Prince William and Duchess Kate, will be a seven-pound brunette named Alexandra who will make her arrival on July 17. At least, that’s what thousands of Brits are betting on."
Selfishly, I hope it's not Alexandra! It's the name of my first daughter and I don't want it to go through the roof in popularity ;-)
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]