Baby Cambridge: Potential Names and Godparents

[Polly]

So your close to being her greatest fan but you don't believe her? Makes no sense to me at all.

Their aides have said they chose the names because they liked them - I believe that.

Well, then, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Aides and palaces say all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, mostly understandable ones. Actually, I have not heard the Duchess say that she preferred George to Alexander - I do, however, recall William's saying that they were still 'working on' the name. My opinion is that they lost the toss. If so, what else could the aides and spokespersons say?

 

[Isabella]

Well, then, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Aides and palaces say all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, mostly understandable ones. Actually, I have not heard the Duchess say that she preferred George to Alexander - I do, however, recall William's saying that they were still 'working on' the name. My opinion is that they lost the toss. If so, what else could the aides and spokespersons say?

The Duchess hasn't said anything about her preference for names, as far as I can recall (other than palace saying that they chose the names because they like them). You may dislike the name George, but that doesn't mean that William and Kate do.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Oh, how grating it is to refer to any human being (especially one with so many admirable qualities) as "expendable." I understand why it is said, but it is very grating to the ear.

 

[Ish]

I didn't see Harry as a major royal at any time - he was the spare and thus expendable and even more so now. He was the extra - not needed for the line to continue and even less needed now.

Had he been the heir to the heir he would have had the full Music Room treatment - without any question but he didn't because he was the extra one and by the time of his birth his parents' marriage had clearly ended.

The Music Room isn't exclusively used by the heirs but the heirs, since WWII have all been done there while lesser royals have been done anywhere that is convenient at the time.

The heirs since WWII? So two people?

I think you're making more out of a tradition than there actually is. Having actually looked through to see where various royal children have been born since the birth of Queen Victoria's eldest, I can say that there doesn't seem to be any preference for one room over any other, be they heir or otherwise, although it does seem like there is a trend for the heir to be baptized somewhere in BP.

 

[cepe]

I didn't see Harry as a major royal at any time - he was the spare and thus expendable and even more so now. He was the extra - not needed for the line to continue and even less needed now.

Had he been the heir to the heir he would have had the full Music Room treatment - without any question but he didn't because he was the extra one and by the time of his birth his parents' marriage had clearly ended.

The Music Room isn't exclusively used by the heirs but the heirs, since WWII have all been done there while lesser royals have been done anywhere that is convenient at the time.

Harsh description and bearing in mind the royal history of the "first born", not particularly accurate. Just a few monarchs who were not expected to reign

Elizabeth II
George VI
George V
Victoria
William IV
Charles I
Elizabeth I
Mary I
Henry VII
Henry I
John

etc.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Yes, I seriously am not seeing how William didn't also become "expendable" when Harry was born - either of them could now fulfill the task.

No one knows who is going to live to bear a crown.

Good list, cepe (and that's just in England). Richard the Lionheart should be on the list too (his brother Harry was the eldest and everyone expected him to rule).

 

[Mariel]

History has made obvious what Cepe says, and others, that the firstborn has not always become monarch. Perhaps, with "modern" medicine, there are fewer early deaths, so an heir has more chance of living long and not needing his "spare" to take over. But look just at the case (not royal but ducal) of Prince William of Gloucester dying at 30 in an air crash, so that his brother became duke when Prince Henry died shortly after that. Some people have supposed that Prince William of Gloucester had a death wish when he crashed, but I have a feeling that is not true. He was intelligent and creative and had a plan for being with his "true love", even though protocol had discouraged it up to that point. In other words, he had plans for the future.
But no, a horrible accident ended that.
William is also a pilot. Probably takes fewer chances and has fewer mechanical glitches than his namesake. But still, if you fly, you take a chance. If you drive, you take a chance. If you breathe the same air as a crowd, you take a chance.

 

[Ish]

Really good point, cepe.


Since William I, there have been 27 monarchs of England/Great Britain/the UK who were not intended at birth to come to the throne, and only 16 who were. In Scotland, between David I (after which inheritance followed primogeniture more or less) and James VI (after which the throne merged with England) it's more even - 9 expected heirs and 9 unexpected ones.

The point still stands though that in some ways Harry - and other spares - has been viewed as more expendable and as such has been given more freedoms. William would never be allowed to go to Afghanistan, but Harry has been. The same happened between Charles and Andrew, Edward VII and George VI (and even more with the younger brothers). During the reign of George III there was no push for the younger sons (or the daughters) to marry and have legitimate children while the Prince of Wales had a daughter.

 

[Mirabel]

However, I do not believe that George was the parents' choice. Personally, I dislike George for the little prince because of the historical negative royal baggage attached to the name.

Every royal name has some negative historical baggage. It's impossible to find any that don't.
Little George will create his own history.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Harry was the 2nd child and so not such a big deal if he died while William was alive. As William now has a child Harry is even less important - just as Andrew ceased to be important when William was born and Margaret was less important once Charles was born. History makes that quite clear as well - Harry wasn't even as high in the line of succession that Andrew and Margaret were before him as they were both 2nd at one point while he was only ever 3rd. Even the government and family see him as expendable as like Andrew and George VI before him with older brothers he was allowed to see active service in a war zone while the older brothers weren't allowed to do so - Queen Victorial allowed her younger sons to have real military service but not her heir as the heir was to be protected while the younger sons were expendable - sad yes but not needed over time. George too is way more important to the family than his younger siblings will be - that doesn't mean that the younger siblings aren't loved or wouldn't be missed just that they aren't as important in the broad scheme of things.

Of course illness has seen younger brothers succeed in the past but that is less likely to happen now as childhood deaths are much rarer and even deaths due to accidents are also dropping e.g. the death toll from car accidents is actually lower now, in real terms, than it was when William was born.

 

[Meadow]

I can't see why George is name Kate and William wouldn't have liked. It was the name Williams Great Grandfather reigned under and we don't know maybe someone in Kate's family or circle of friends is called George or she just likes the name. Names aren't for everyone I like George I even have a cockatiel and her name is George (we thought she was a he until she laid an egg). I think Harry is an important member of the family his father will be King and then his brother. He has had to live his life a certain way and if he wasn't important he could off gotten away with a lot more. He is doing Royal Duties so he is more important then Beatrice and Eugenie and he will do more and more as time progresses. And if something happened to William and George, Harry could be King. You never know what is in the future.

 

[Polly]

Every royal name has some negative historical baggage. It's impossible to find any that don't.
Little George will create his own history.

Few bear the odure of the Georges - here's English poet, Walter Savage Landor's famous and much-quoted lines (written when Victoria was Queen)

George the First was always reckoned
Vile, but viler George the Second;
And what mortal ever heard
Any good of George the Third?
When from earth the Fourth descended
(God be praised!) the Georges ended.

I will agree that, despite the justified criticisms of the truly woeful Georges, George V, albeit a stern parent and a strict disciplinarian, was a successful king: he's the first monarch who ever showed that he cared more for his subjects than he did for the status quo, himself, the aristocracy, or ingrained, establishment government. Many of the so-called 'upper classes' never forgave him (and some still don't to this day) for his obvious partiality for doing the right thing by ' the people', as he saw it. Given his role in helping to dismantle the inherited power of the House of Lords (capitulating to 'the herd' it was called by some) people everywhere should celebrate his commitment to and understanding of the real meaning of Kingship. Hopefully, Baby Cambridge will have something of the steel grit his great-great-great-grandfather, but then, he's only but one of the baby's 32 antecedents.

Still, a new prince for a still new century remains a cause for celebration, whatever his name. It is not, however, contingent on me to like it, nor to refrain from so saying, particularly in a forum where the majority do, and say so.

Vive la diffèrence, I suggest.

 

[COUNTESS]

I suggest, it is their child and it is their choice. And, although, I didn't like the name, as I say Prince George, it has a mellow and sweet sound. So, good luck, little one.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.

 

[kathia_sophia]

I dislike the name George, but it's William and Catherine's son, not mine. Why wouldn't they like the name? I doubt any parent would name a son/daughter with a name they don't like, that's absurd, I'm sure they liked it and adding the history and traditional fact related to the name would even make their choice even more solid and final.

 

[Mirabel]

That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.

You know what Anne of Green Gables said about that?

I don't believe a rose would smell as sweet, if it was called a cabbage!

 

[HRHHermione]

You know what Anne of Green Gables said about that?

I don't believe a rose would smell as sweet, if it was called a cabbage!

I thought of that quote myself when I read the earlier post

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Elizabeth and Philip named their son Charles and that has a horrible history as well. Diana and Charles named their second son Henry and Henry 8.0 ruined that name all by himself. The last king William had a bunch of out of wedlock children and was a drunk. Any traditional royal name they chose was going to have a bad history. George V and VI alone make it an honorable name, but I also think George III was a man to be admired despite his illness.

 

[cepe]

Elizabeth and Philip named their son Charles and that has a horrible history as well. Diana and Charles named their second son Henry and Henry 8.0 ruined that name all by himself. The last king William had a bunch of out of wedlock children and was a drunk. Any traditional royal name they chose was going to have a bad history. George V and VI alone make it an honorable name, but I also think George III was a man to be admired despite his illness.

None of them were all bad. Henry VIII created and developed the British Navy, which enabled Elizabeth I and Drake to defeat the Armada, and Nelson to defeat the French - all important to the British history.

IT's easy for all of us to see history with today's views, morality, and opinions plus the advantage of seeing what happened as a result of the decisions made. Hence the trend of rewriting and apologising.

It's seeing it as they did, with their imperatives which makes history interesting and something to learn from.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Well if none of them were all bad then the George's were saints and there is no reason not to name a son George.

 

[Frideswide]

He was on a plane headed to Iceland. Not to diminish his death, but he was not killed going to fight anything. He had his problems, but I think he was a good man, and how the family perceived this, I do not know. My husband's first name is George, never called that and he hates it, but a family name just the same.

He was in the military, in a war, flying an airforce plane, on a military mission - that is KIA - as he was undertaking a military mission during a war.

Iluvbertie is correct. There need be no argument about this. The Duke of Kent died while on military service and is therefore commemorated by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

WINDSOR, GEORGE EDWARD ALEXANDER EDMUND

Rank: Air Commodore

Date of Death: 25/08/1942

Age: 39

Regiment/Service: Royal Air Force (Auxiliary Air Force)

Awards: K G, K T, G C M G, G C V O

Cemetery: FROGMORE ROYAL BURIAL GROUND

Additional Information: Duke of Kent. Fourth son of His Majesty King George V and Her Majesty Queen Mary; husband of H.R.H. The Duchess of Kent.

 

[Frideswide]

I am disappointed that they have gone for the obvious in George. Dull. If it had to be the name of a previous monarch, I would have preferred something from further back like Richard or John: a name that hasn't been recycled so often would have been fresher. I don't see any reason why they can't use a non-regnal name anyway.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On the subject of cousin terminology, it may sound complicated but it is simple once you have grasped it.

First cousins, second, third cousins etc are people from the same generation who trace back to a common ancestor. Thus first cousins have grandparents as their first common ancestors. Second cousins have great-grandparents as their first common ancestors. Third cousins have great-great-grandparents as their first common ancestor. And so on. You count the number of generations in between you/your cousins and the common ancestor.

The "removed" describes cousins who are not of the same generation. So the children of my first cousin are my first cousins once removed. Their children are my first cousins twice removed. In the same way my father's first cousin is my first cousin once removed; my grandfather's first cousin is my first cousin twice removed. And so on. The number of generations apart = the number of times removed.

 

[muriel]

I am disappointed that they have gone for the obvious in George. Dull. If it had to be the name of a previous monarch, I would have preferred something from further back like Richard or John: a name that hasn't been recycled so often would have been fresher. I don't see any reason why they can't use a non-regnal name anyway.

-

Do you think there might be a possibility that William and Catherine might actually like the name George?

 

[Frideswide]

Of course. I've only given my own opinion. No reason at all why they should share it.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

It is sad that they have to keep using the same names over and over again and not bring in less used royal names. I believe I heard that there is a taboo in using the name John in the BRF, and be wise of Richard III I'm not sure if that name would go over well either.

 

[royalistbert]

It's not sad at all. I am happy that they are using a name with history and weight to it rather than some made up modern name.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

I cannot see James Middleton of "naked internet photos he put up himself" as being a godfather to Baby George. If he is chosen, I'll forever lose interest in the "modern" BRF.

 

[muriel]

I cannot see James Middleton of "naked internet photos he put up himself" as being a godfather to Baby George. If he is chosen, I'll forever lose interest in the "modern" BRF.

That surely is a threat they will betaking very seriously at BP / KP!

 

[miche]

You mean you haven't lost interest already?

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

It's not sad at all. I am happy that they are using a name with history and weight to it rather than some made up modern name.

Oh good gracious no one is saying name the kid apple, there are other traditional English names that need to make a comeback. But I knew the name they chose would be boring and I am still glad it is George rather than Charles or Edward.