Baby Cambridge: Musings and Suggestions


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Victoria Murphy ‏@QueenVicMirror 4m
OK so lots of royal baby news today! Kate revealed her baby is due in mid-July and she will be stopping royal duties sometime in June

Victoria Murphy ‏@QueenVicMirror 4m
She also said she and William have a shortlist of names but it's really difficult and her friends keep texting her names
 
The best thing the Duchess of Cambridge can do is research in list of English and British Kings and Queen since William the Conqueror, and choose a name that pleases both she and her husband, and Her Majesty the Queen, of course.
 
With HG, it's not just a matter of "enduring". It can be actually life-threatening. and it can happen even to a healthy looking woman like Kate, to be more than inconvenienced with HG. I think Kate will probably nurse the baby, so this may hold off another pregnancy for a while. When I had HG, I threw up EVERYTHING including medications.
I should have had frequent IV's, that's why I suggest Kate and her docs should plan on IV intervention even before she gets sick. They simply don't know the mechanism of HG (not that I've read) but I think it may happen more to slender women who diet a lot.
That is just a guess. This whole thing, and also watching Downton Abbey, where one of the characters had toxemia and died of it, made me realize that dangers of pregnancy still abound. My mom had toxemia when she carried me, and we both barely survived, and she never had another baby. And my mom was not a "sick" invalid type, hardly ever went to doctors. She was a slender, athletic woman, not a hypochondriac. Anyway, I'm ranting, but I can see good reason to hope that others have the "spare", whatever may be expected of the direct heirs to the throne.
 
With HG, it's not just a matter of "enduring". It can be actually life-threatening. and it can happen even to a healthy looking woman like Kate, to be more than inconvenienced with HG. I think Kate will probably nurse the baby, so this may hold off another pregnancy for a while.

There is still the fact that once the baby is born and in your arms, you totally forget all the nasty stuff you endured during your pregnancy. Although I can attest to the fact that this statement is true, one never does forget totally.

I do think Kate will have more than one child and I do think they will be born close together in age. The first pregnancy is always the hardest and with the second, things aren't quite as scary and lessons are learned from the first pregnancy.
 
The best thing the Duchess of Cambridge can do is research in list of English and British Kings and Queen since William the Conqueror, and choose a name that pleases both she and her husband, and Her Majesty the Queen, of course.

Why does it have to pease the Queen? I did not know that she has a say in the name of the baby. Is that a normal thing?
 
Why does it have to pease the Queen? I did not know that she has a say in the name of the baby. Is that a normal thing?

Apparently she has a veto power, which I think is nonsense.
 
Nonsense that she has veto power, or nonsense that we believe she has it?
 
Queen Fifi Trixiebelle? King Brooklyn? The Monarch has veto power for a reason. Although it seems unlikely that she will need to exercise it, at least not in this case.
 
When Beatrice and Eugenie were born, I read that the parents wanted to call one of them Sophia. But the queen vetoed it. I also read that the Queen consulted with foreign royals about the name. Maybe that much consultation will not be in effect this time. I do not know why the queen object to "Sophia". I do not think Sophie Wessex was in the picture at that time.
 
Nonsense that she has veto power, or nonsense that we believe she has it?

Nonsense that she has it.

Queen Fifi Trixiebelle? King Brooklyn? The Monarch has veto power for a reason.

Yes because clearly past royal children have shown a lot of parents choosing fifi trixiebelle and Brooklyn yes? Royals have enough common sense to know who their own children are, naming them something stupid isn't going to happen. Veto power or not.
 
Didn't King George VI vetoed "Anne" when the Duke and Duchess of York were deciding Princess Margaret's name?

Maybe the Royal Veto doesn't exist anymore, but was used in the past.
 
I guess I can see the positive point in having veto power. I would be highly in favor of putting my foot down if the child were to named something absolutely rediculous. I do wonder if there are certain names that are on the "out of the question" list. I think the use of traditional royal names is great but, it would be nice to see a future monarch with a fresh name. Maybe it would not be so bad to have a "Queen Frances" or " Queen Emma". Sometimes change can be a good thing and since this will be a modern monarchy, why not? But alas, I doubt anyone will deviate from tradition too much since, afterall, we are talking about the British monarchy.
 
Something ridiculous like Isla or Savannah?
 
One day, this baby will be the British Monarch, his/her name will be on History books.

I'm 100% sure the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will be very tradional, at least with the first name.

The names with more chances to be choosen as first names, in my opinion, are:

Boys names -

George.
Edward.
Arthur.
Henry.
James.
Philip.
William.
Michael.
Richard.
Stephen.

Girls names:

Elizabeth.
Victoria.
Charlotte.
Anne.
Mary.
Catherine.
Alexandra.
Margaret.
Eleonor.
Rose.
 
Something ridiculous like Isla or Savannah?

There's a huge difference between naming the 13th and 14th in the Line of Succession, and naming someone who will be the 3th in direct line to succeed.
 
Baby's birthday will be in July. Just imagine when she/he get older, the kid along with friends will take off into the night and party like it's 1999.
 
Nonsense that she has it.



Yes because clearly past royal children have shown a lot of parents choosing fifi trixiebelle and Brooklyn yes? Royals have enough common sense to know who their own children are, naming them something stupid isn't going to happen. Veto power or not.

Perhaps from now on I will have to advise when I am making a small joke.

Of course, they are not going to use a ridiculous name. There may be, however, ordinary-seeming names to which HM might object, and I won't bother to speculate what those names might be.
And whether there is a 'legal' or 'traditional' veto, it's certain that the parents would respond to an objection from the Queen.
 
Something ridiculous like Isla or Savannah?

Neither Isla or Savannah are ridiculous names. Isla is especially beautiful. However they are not suitable if you put Princess in front of them. Neither Isla nor Savannah hold royal titles and are far enough down the line of succesion for Peter and Autumn to pick names they like and have to consider its consequences.
 
One day, this baby will be the British Monarch, his/her name will be on History books.

I'm 100% sure the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will be very tradional, at least with the first name.

The names with more chances to be choosen as first names, in my opinion, are:

Boys names -

George.
Edward.
Arthur.
Henry.
James.
Philip.
William.
Michael.
Richard.
Stephen.

Girls names:

Elizabeth.
Victoria.
Charlotte.
Anne.
Mary.
Catherine.
Alexandra.
Margaret.
Eleonor.
Rose.

I cant quite see Queen Rose myself.
 
I cant quite see Queen Rose myself.

Yes, I don't know why I put "Rose" in the list, maybe I was thinking about Princess Margaret.

Maybe Adelaide is a best choise than Rose.
 
Nonsense that she has it.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that HM has a formal power of veto, but I do believe that if she had reservations about a particular name, she would make that known. And that in such a case, her children or grandchildren would respect her feelings. I do not think this should be dismissed as nonsense.
 
When Beatrice and Eugenie were born, I read that the parents wanted to call one of them Sophia. But the queen vetoed it. I also read that the Queen consulted with foreign royals about the name. Maybe that much consultation will not be in effect this time. I do not know why the queen object to "Sophia". I do not think Sophie Wessex was in the picture at that time.

Didn't Sarah want to call Beatrice, Annabel but the name was said to not be approved of by the Queen? I did not hear of the dislike to Sophia and no Sophie was not in Edward's life then. She came into the picture in 1993.

I do believe the Queen does have a say over the name choices, but I don't think she can "veto" any choices as such. As Lumutqueen said, the Royals have common sense to know that if their child is 2nd or 3rd in line to the throne they need a "traditional" name if they ever needed to use it.
 
When Beatrice and Eugenie were born, I read that the parents wanted to call one of them Sophia. But the queen vetoed it. I also read that the Queen consulted with foreign royals about the name. Maybe that much consultation will not be in effect this time. I do not know why the queen object to "Sophia". I do not think Sophie Wessex was in the picture at that time.

I never heard Sophia, and I doubt she consults with foreign royals, if only by simple fact they have little to do with the continentals except weddings and funerals. I know andy and Sarah wanted the name Annabelle, and that was vetoed.

I think they can chose a traditional name, without picking something over used. There are a lot of beautiful royal names tat have not been over used, in the BRF royal tree.
 
Unless they're planning on naming their baby something absolutely ridiculous like Princess Rainbow or Prince Jayden, I doubt HM is gonna intervene too much in the whole naming process. However, I do think that William and Catherine have realised that their baby is the heir and needs rather traditional name.
 
Something ridiculous like Isla or Savannah?

How are those names ridiculous? Furthermore, what do the names of children who will never be monarch have to do with what William and Catherine decide to name their child? Obviously Peter and Autumn have more leeway than the Cambridges do and can be non-traditional.
 
How are those names ridiculous? Furthermore, what do the names of children who will never be monarch have to do with what William and Catherine decide to name their child? Obviously Peter and Autumn have more leeway than the Cambridges do and can be non-traditional.

The point was veto power of names of grandchildren by the sovereign. I personally like names that are places like savannah, but Seriously) would Princess Isla work for any if you?
 
The point was veto power of names of grandchildren by the sovereign. I personally like names that are places like savannah, but Seriously) would Princess Isla work for any if you?

No, Princesses Savannah and Isla would never have happened. But that's the point, they are too far from the Throne, so, Peter and Autumn had more freedom to choose anything they liked to name the girls.

On the other hand, the Queen vetoed Annabel for Princess Beatrice, because she was the 5th in the Line of Succession. Cambridge Baby is the future Monarch, I'm sure Her Majesty will have a say in Baby's name.
 
No, Princesses Savannah and Isla would never have happened. But that's the point, they are too far from the Throne, so, Peter and Autumn had more freedom to choose anything they liked to name the girls.

On the other hand, the Queen vetoed Annabel for Princess Beatrice, because she was the 5th in the Line of Succession. Cambridge Baby is the future Monarch, I'm sure Her Majesty will have a say in Baby's name.

I have the feeling that this veto power for names is for children who will be HRH's. Notice that Peter and Zara have "non-royal" names (although Peter might pass muster) but the children of the sons have very traditional royal names (even Edward's).

As for the Queen vetoing "Sophia" I doubt that. Sophia is a royal name, and has been given to princesses born into the family before. George III's daughter was the last one. I doubt she would veto on personal preference, but would only step in on suitability.
 
I have the feeling that this veto power for names is for children who will be HRH's. Notice that Peter and Zara have "non-royal" names (although Peter might pass muster) but the children of the sons have very traditional royal names (even Edward's).

Exactly, Gracie.

The Monarch's veto power is only for people who will be HRH.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom