The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2221  
Old 11-02-2013, 06:03 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posts: 705
I think nowadays with mass media the days of using a different name are gone. It was much easier to use a different name back then than now.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2222  
Old 11-02-2013, 06:14 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Shirley View Post
Not sure this goes along with the topic but it kinda does. My Question is why does the Queen or King change their name. Example: I heard that Prince Charles would be call King William (some number). George VI real name is Albert Frederick Arthur George, Edward VII is really Albert Edward, Queen Victoria is really Alexandrina Victoria. Why did they do that? Any ideas?
Some monarchs - not many - have chosen to go with a name other than their given name for various reasons.

Victoria was christened Alexandrina Victoria, going by "Drina" when she was really young, then eventually just "Victoria." It was the name she identified with, so when she became Queen she chose to use just that instead of the double barrelled name.

Edward VII was christened Albert Edward and was known as such publicly throughout life - privately he was Bertie. The intent was that starting with him all male monarchs would have the double barrel of Albert Something, but when he became king he chose to drop his first name. It was said that this was so as to preserve the legacy of his father, but I always figured it was more because he didn't particularly like his parents and the name change gave him a bit of a chance to break free from his image as PoW.

George VI was Prince Albert previously, but known in the family as Bertie (in contrast to his brother, who was Prince Edward, but known in the family as David). The reason behind his choice of name change was because it presented a continuity with his father's reign. Given the circumstances around his ascension, I don't think they would have wanted the monarch to be a first in name.

The speculation that Charles might change his name - which is pure speculation and rumour at this point - is based on the so-called unsavouryness of the name "Charles" as a British monarch. Charles I was beheaded, Charles II left behind no legitimate heirs (leading to James II...), and Bonnie Prince Charles is styled as Charles III by the Jacobites. If Charles changes his name it's typically considered he'll go with George VII.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2223  
Old 11-02-2013, 06:56 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Shirley View Post
Not sure this goes along with the topic but it kinda does. My Question is why does the Queen or King change their name. Example: I heard that Prince Charles would be call King William (some number). George VI real name is Albert Frederick Arthur George, Edward VII is really Albert Edward, Queen Victoria is really Alexandrina Victoria. Why did they do that? Any ideas?

There are different reasons in each case:

Victoria - although baptised Alexandrina Victoria was called 'Drina' until she was about 6 or 7 when her mother started called her Victoria. Her parents had wanted to name her Georgiana but George IV overruled them at the christening and insisted they name her after one of her godfathers - Alexander I of Russia and her mother, The Duchess of Kent. So by the time she became Queen Victoria was known officially and in private as Victoria.

Edward VII was baptised Albert Edward and his mother expressed the opinion that he should reign as Albert Edward I but... he dropped the Albert - a very German name in many minds, associated heavily with his father - a man whom Edward VII didn't get along all that well, and he also wanted to make it clear that he was now the King and not under the thumb of his mother so he said something along the lines of: 'I was baptised Albert Edward with the intention that I would reign as Albert Edward but I have chosen to reign only as Edward VII as I believe the name Albert, rightly associated with my father, should stand for him alone.' I am paraphrasing here as there are a few versions around as he did the announcement 'off the cuff' at the ascension council and a number of those present wrote down what he said from memory.

George VI came to the throne after the abdication so he chose to use George as a throwback to his father - to make that link of continuity from the beginning of the year after the upheavals of the 10 - 11 months of the reign of his older brother.

Each case has to be looked at individually rather than assume that it is a 'tradition' or something like that.

Elizabeth reportedly was asked what name she would use having become Queen and she replied 'Why my own of course'.

What name Charles will use - and I believe the rumour that has been around since the 1970s is that he will reign as George VII - as a tribute to his grandfather but there is no official statement to that effect. We will simply have to wait until the time comes and he announces his decision.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2224  
Old 11-03-2013, 05:37 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 1,423
I think in all likelihood Charles will reign as Charles III. By the time he is king a small handful of people would have been alive for the reign of George VI. The late King's name is honored by George being named for him. It seems strange that a man who might be in his 70s then would go by a different name than the one he is known by for a job that he has waited his entire life for.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2225  
Old 11-03-2013, 03:08 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,687
Albert Edward did - having been officially referred to as HRH Prince Albert Edward for nearly 60 years when he decided to drop the Albert and people didn't have a problem with that - he was still called 'Bertie' by his family but the name on official documents was Edward and that is all that really a name change would mean - what name is used when he signs documents.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2226  
Old 11-03-2013, 04:08 PM
Lady Kathleen's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: San Francisco Bay Area, United States
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Albert Edward did - having been officially referred to as HRH Prince Albert Edward for nearly 60 years when he decided to drop the Albert and people didn't have a problem with that - he was still called 'Bertie' by his family but the name on official documents was Edward and that is all that really a name change would mean - what name is used when he signs documents.
Wasn't he officially referred to as HRH The Prince of Wales?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2227  
Old 11-03-2013, 04:42 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,367
I have a question about titles from centuries ago. Edward IV's daughter was known as Elizabeth of York, would her cousin Margaret also be known as Margaret of York or Margaret of Clarence? If Richard III had a daughter would she be ____ of York of _____ of Gloucester?
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #2228  
Old 11-03-2013, 05:24 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
I have a question about titles from centuries ago. Edward IV's daughter was known as Elizabeth of York, would her cousin Margaret also be known as Margaret of York or Margaret of Clarence? If Richard III had a daughter would she be ____ of York of _____ of Gloucester?
A hypothetical daughter of Richard's would have been "of Gloucester," in reference to her father's dukedom (unless she was born while he was king, then she would have been "of England."

Margaret would have been "of Clarence."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2229  
Old 11-03-2013, 05:39 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Kathleen View Post
Wasn't he officially referred to as HRH The Prince of Wales?
In the CC - yes - but in the normal press it was just as common to be Prince Albert Edward - same with Charles - officially HRH The Prince of Wales but commonly Prince Charles
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2230  
Old 11-03-2013, 07:44 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,367
Ish can you tell me why Elizabeth was "of York"? Is it because her father inherited the title, Duke of York, after his father was killed, before he became King? But Elizabeth was born when he was King so should she have been Elizabeth of England?
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #2231  
Old 11-03-2013, 08:06 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
Ish can you tell me why Elizabeth was "of York"? Is it because her father inherited the title, Duke of York, after his father was killed, before he became King? But Elizabeth was born when he was King so should she have been Elizabeth of England?
They didn't use this modern system at all.
Richard's son was Edward of Middleham - he was born at Middleham Castle.
Real power and lands were more important than titles.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2232  
Old 11-03-2013, 08:11 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
In the CC - yes - but in the normal press it was just as common to be Prince Albert Edward - same with Charles - officially HRH The Prince of Wales but commonly Prince Charles
I think the press in the 1800s was a bit more formal than press nowadays.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2233  
Old 11-03-2013, 09:14 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
Ish can you tell me why Elizabeth was "of York"? Is it because her father inherited the title, Duke of York, after his father was killed, before he became King? But Elizabeth was born when he was King so should she have been Elizabeth of England?
You bring up a really interesting question here, and I'm not certain of the answer.

Women were typically "of" something in relation to their father - if their father held no titles, and was just "of" wherever he came from then it would be that, but if he held titles then sometimes it would be "of" the title and sometimes it would be "of" where he came from. Daughters of the king were usually "of" the kingdom, but sometime that just depended on when they were born and when they were married (in comparison to when their father became king). I'm not sure if an unmarried woman at the time would have changed her "of" to reflect her father's status, as happens now.

That said, the trick with Elizabeth becomes a matter of when she became "of York." It could be that she was "of England" when born, but "of York" when her father was deposed, and just retained it after he became king again (not likely, as all of Edward's daughters are known as "of York").

It could be that they became known as "of York" when Richard came to the throne and declared them illegitimate - in this way they would have been taking a more noble surname than the "FitzRoy" more commonly associated with acknowledged illegitimate children.

It could also be that "of York" is more of a historical name - as time passed we recorded he surname as being of her father's house rather than what she actually used at the time. I do know that this is often the case when "Plantagent" is used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
They didn't use this modern system at all. Richard's son was Edward of Middleham - he was born at Middleham Castle. Real power and lands were more important than titles.
Real power and lands were often denoted by titles. The "of wherever" as a surname typically denoted where a man was born, but not a woman. Elizabeth is a perfect example as she wasn't born in York, but London.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2234  
Old 11-03-2013, 09:46 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalistbert View Post
I think the press in the 1800s was a bit more formal than press nowadays.
Not really - they did use the titles when being formal but at times they also used names and titles and even nicknames way more than the press today.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2235  
Old 11-03-2013, 09:56 PM
Baroness of Books's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bookstacks, United States
Posts: 5,773
Wasn't it also because at that time, the two rival royal houses were Lancaster and York and many family members were defined by such? I recall that Henry VI's son, Prince Edward, was not only known as the Prince of Wales but also as Edward of Lancaster.
__________________
A book should be either a bandit or a rebel or a man in the crowd..... D.H. Lawrence
Reply With Quote
  #2236  
Old 11-03-2013, 10:51 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baroness of Books View Post
Wasn't it also because at that time, the two rival royal houses were Lancaster and York and the family members were defined by such? I recall that Henry VI's son, Prince Edward, was not only known as The Prince of Wales but also as Edward of Lancaster.
I think the house association is the most likely for later periods - we call them the Yorks because that's the house they were in. However, I do question how much of that would have been contemporary use at the time.

The name Plantagenet is associated with the House now, but it wasn't associated with the House them, until Richard of York revived it (previously it had just been a nickname of a forefather). While we see Lancaster and York appear throughout both the lines, do we know if sources at the time would have called them such, or if it's just later sources coming up with it?

I'm not trying to say that (in the case of York/Lancaster) it was one or the other, or even that it's clearly defined as to which it would have been - it's very possible it changed by person. I'm just theorizing here.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2237  
Old 11-12-2013, 03:54 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 30
No, Camilla is absolutely technically Princess of Wales as the wife of the Prince of Wales, she is just not using the title officially out of respect for Diana. This is all part of a plan to win people over to camilla...calling her Princess of Wales right out of the gate would have caused an uproar, and Charles and his team of advisors knew it.
She'll be Queen Camilla one day, no doubt.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2238  
Old 11-12-2013, 05:04 PM
fandesacs2003's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 3,293
Exactly! This was the strategy. At 2005, Diana's was very present to people's minds, and they would be very hurt if another woman beared the same title, and in the top of that Camilla.
But there is no doubt that she will be fully a Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2239  
Old 11-12-2013, 05:18 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by fandesacs2003 View Post
But there is no doubt that she will be fully a Queen.
And she'll be a great Queen. History will remember her as the beloved consort of King Charles III.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2240  
Old 11-12-2013, 07:07 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by elizabethkelly View Post
This is all part of a plan to win people over to camilla...calling her Princess of Wales right out of the gate would have caused an uproar, and Charles and his team of advisors knew it.
She'll be Queen Camilla one day, no doubt.
So what you are saying is that they cold bloodedly misrepresented what the long term plan was at the time of the marriage beause they knew that if the true plan were known it would cause an 'uproar'? It's either that or take Charles at his word at the time of the marriage.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, spouse, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Questions About [non-British] Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 729 10-09-2014 04:24 PM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1110 07-12-2014 10:00 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 573 11-14-2013 11:59 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 36 08-08-2013 12:05 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn Major Royal Events 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:14 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]