The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2641  
Old 07-23-2013, 09:04 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 348
[QUOTE=PrincessKaimi;1580914]I have several reference works on English kinship terms (in both England and America) and I'm using Ward Goodenough's standard work here (so unless it's changed recently, I think he's correct - he did tons and tons of research; since I studied the subject in graduate school, I have a hard time just going to "the internet" for an answer).

If William is James's first cousin, then James is the baby's second cousin, no removals. Removal refers to going down one generation. So, my mother's first cousins are my second cousins. Their children are second cousins once removed. My own first cousins' children are my first cousins once removed and my first cousins' grandchildren are my first cousins twice removed. The first cousins of my grandmother are my third cousins. Their children are my third cousins, once removed. In this way, starting with the person who is using the terms (Ego in kinship terminology), we have an easy way of counting up the generations of our own lineal kin and then down the lineal generations of our non-lineal kin (cousins).

Anyway, that's what my books say and that's also how most people I know who are into genealogy use the terms.

Now, it's possible that American and British use of kin terms is diverging, but in the 1950's-1970's when the data I describe was collected (based on ethnomethod aka what folk experts such as genealogists were using), that was how it worked. This is also how my Aunt E. used the terms, and both of my grandmothers (one of part British descent, the other part Scottish).

Since I really did know my grandmothers' first cousins, these terms were relevant to me. Anyway, I'd be interested to know if other people's families really use these terms extensively and what actual research there is besides Goodenough and his many followers. It's true the work was criticized as being overly New England/England based...and it's possible there were already regional variations in place. Not sure how we establish authoritative use of terms in that case.


Back to naming: if Alexander is in the running, might not Peter and Paul also be? I do not think they'll name him John (or Timothy or Harold).

I do wonder how Charles and Diana finally settled on William as the first part of Prince William's name. Anyone know?[/QUOTE]

It is said was

1. name not in current use in the immediate family
2. named in honor of Prince William of Gloucester, the queen's cousin
__________________

__________________
  #2642  
Old 07-23-2013, 09:15 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 203
My guess is that William is going to surprise everyone. He is a traditionalist, but he is also very much his own man.

I remember hearing years ago (don't know whether it is true or not) that Charles and HM did not want the name William, but Diana insisted upon it.
__________________

__________________
  #2643  
Old 07-23-2013, 09:21 PM
crm2317's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Estelle was not a modern (laughing out loud at that) name chosen out of mid air. It honors a beloved family member Estelle Bernadotte.

Gabriel, Isaac, Max... Jimmy, Conrad, Darnell.....random names with no connection either to the couple or to the royal family. This is an heir to the throne, a future king, if not a royal name, I'd at least hope a family name.
I wasn't aware that Victoria and Estelle Bernadotte were close. At the time did her son not say that he was touched that Estelle shared the name of his mother but that he wasn't sure if they'd met?
__________________
God Save the House of Windsor
  #2644  
Old 07-23-2013, 09:23 PM
Lady Ann's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: IN THE CITY, United States
Posts: 857
I heard Diana wanted John after her father but was told NO because of the names history. William was Diana's second choice...I don't remember where I read this.
__________________
Lady Ann
Life began with waking up and loving my mother's face…~ George Eliot ~
  #2645  
Old 07-23-2013, 09:23 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bedford, United States
Posts: 478
I so hope he does not do George or alexander or really any name people are betting on...I want a surprise ! Alfred would be cool... you can't get more royal than that!
__________________
  #2646  
Old 07-23-2013, 09:24 PM
cmbruno's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 436
Since both William and Catherine studied in Scotland, I think a name of one of the Kings of Scotland might be chosen. Maybe David, Robert, Malcolm, Alexander or Duncan.
__________________
  #2647  
Old 07-23-2013, 09:25 PM
Archduchess Zelia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 2,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmbruno View Post
Since both William and Catherine studied in Scotland, I think a name of one of the Kings of Scotland might be chosen. Maybe David, Robert, Malcolm, Alexander or Duncan.
Or Andrew, as in the patron saint of Scotland.
__________________
"Blessed be god, the king, the queen and all our sweet children be in good health."
— Lady Margaret Beaufort, April 1497

  #2648  
Old 07-23-2013, 09:28 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post

I have several reference works on English kinship terms (in both England and America) and I'm using Ward Goodenough's standard work here (so unless it's changed recently, I think he's correct - he did tons and tons of research; since I studied the subject in graduate school, I have a hard time just going to "the internet" for an answer).

If William is James's first cousin, then James is the baby's second cousin, no removals. Removal refers to going down one generation. So, my mother's first cousins are my second cousins. Their children are second cousins once removed. My own first cousins' children are my first cousins once removed and my first cousins' grandchildren are my first cousins twice removed. The first cousins of my grandmother are my third cousins. Their children are my third cousins, once removed. In this way, starting with the person who is using the terms (Ego in kinship terminology), we have an easy way of counting up the generations of our own lineal kin and then down the lineal generations of our non-lineal kin (cousins).

Anyway, that's what my books say and that's also how most people I know who are into genealogy use the terms.

Now, it's possible that American and British use of kin terms is diverging, but in the 1950's-1970's when the data I describe was collected (based on ethnomethod aka what folk experts such as genealogists were using), that was how it worked. This is also how my Aunt E. used the terms, and both of my grandmothers (one of part British descent, the other part Scottish).

Since I really did know my grandmothers' first cousins, these terms were relevant to me. Anyway, I'd be interested to know if other people's families really use these terms extensively and what actual research there is besides Goodenough and his many followers. It's true the work was criticized as being overly New England/England based...and it's possible there were already regional variations in place. Not sure how we establish authoritative use of terms in that case.

Back to naming: if Alexander is in the running, might not Peter and Paul also be? I do not think they'll name him John (or Timothy or Harold).

I do wonder how Charles and Diana finally settled on William as the first part of Prince William's name. Anyone know?
Okay, so I didn't entirely follow all of what you've said here (I haven't studied this as much as you have, but I do find it interesting).

In addition to what I found when I googled "first cousins once removed" and what I found when I googled "Ward Goodenough kinship cousins" (the results of which were confusing and didn't seem to reference him), I also looked up first cousins on the Oxford English Dictionary, which throughout my schooling I've found to be kind of a big deal.

Quote:
first, second cousin, etc.: expressing the relationship of persons descended the same number of steps in distinct lines from a common ancestor. Thus the children of brothers or sisters are first cousins to each other; the children of first cousins are second cousins to each other; and so on. The term second cousin is also loosely applied to the son or daughter of a first cousin, more exactly called a (first) cousin once removed.
I'm wondering if your definition of cousins is based on a more technical one, while mine is more of a layman's definition.
__________________
  #2649  
Old 07-23-2013, 09:39 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by crm2317 View Post
I wasn't aware that Victoria and Estelle Bernadotte were close. At the time did her son not say that he was touched that Estelle shared the name of his mother but that he wasn't sure if they'd met?
Whether Victoria knew her personally, doesn't really matter. She was a loved member of the family, and extremely well respected and remembered for her charity work. It has been said, Victoria had admiration for the woman. It's no different than naming a child for a great-grandparent or someone you may never have met, like William using George for instance.

The point is, though not 'royal' it is a family name, not some random modern name chosen
__________________
  #2650  
Old 07-23-2013, 09:48 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
Hmm. I think the view expressed by Oxford allow of both perspectives (and the Wikipedia article forgets that kinship isn't always looked at from a lineal and outside perspective). But, we all seem to be agreed in first cousins - and once removed. James and William are first cousins, that's for sure. What James is, from Baby's perspective, seems not to be clear either from Oxford or Wikipedia's article.

My definition (and Goodenough's work) was based on interviewing people (all of whom were born around 1880-1920). They agreed with each other, but that doesn't mean that all people use the terms the same way.

What is clear though, is that James and William share the same grandparents, which is the definition of a first cousin. It gets tricky, when seen from William's perspective (for example) or Baby's perspective. Goodenough's informants had a system worked out that clearly delineated relationships without having to count grandparental generations (unlike Wikipedia's, whose system could result in different terms depending on which person in the chart is being talked about).

I think Goodenough was indeed trying to work out a watertight system (and that's why he's been criticized).

Since people seem to be mainly objected to James because of the close age of the two individuals in the story, I'm guessing "Andrew" would be okay (but what a strange choice, given the other circumstances).

If they could live with Philip, I'm sure everyone else will be happy with that. They both like pleasing others, they probably won't regret it. I like Alistair better than Alexander - is there someone in the family who is named Alexander that they've be referring to?
I'd choose Alistair William Philip Arthur if it were me...but it's not me!
__________________
  #2651  
Old 07-23-2013, 09:50 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
I have several reference works on English kinship terms (in both England and America) and I'm using Ward Goodenough's standard work here (so unless it's changed recently, I think he's correct - he did tons and tons of research; since I studied the subject in graduate school, I have a hard time just going to "the internet" for an answer).

If William is James's first cousin, then James is the baby's second cousin, no removals. Removal refers to going down one generation. So, my mother's first cousins are my second cousins. Their children are second cousins once removed. My own first cousins' children are my first cousins once removed and my first cousins' grandchildren are my first cousins twice removed. The first cousins of my grandmother are my third cousins. Their children are my third cousins, once removed. In this way, starting with the person who is using the terms (Ego in kinship terminology), we have an easy way of counting up the generations of our own lineal kin and then down the lineal generations of our non-lineal kin (cousins).

Anyway, that's what my books say and that's also how most people I know who are into genealogy use the terms.

Now, it's possible that American and British use of kin terms is diverging, but in the 1950's-1970's when the data I describe was collected (based on ethnomethod aka what folk experts such as genealogists were using), that was how it worked. This is also how my Aunt E. used the terms, and both of my grandmothers (one of part British descent, the other part Scottish).

Since I really did know my grandmothers' first cousins, these terms were relevant to me. Anyway, I'd be interested to know if other people's families really use these terms extensively and what actual research there is besides Goodenough and his many followers. It's true the work was criticized as being overly New England/England based...and it's possible there were already regional variations in place. Not sure how we establish authoritative use of terms in that case.


Back to naming: if Alexander is in the running, might not Peter and Paul also be? I do not think they'll name him John (or Timothy or Harold).

I do wonder how Charles and Diana finally settled on William as the first part of Prince William's name. Anyone know?
According to the terminology as I've always known it (and I just double-checked this with a relative who is well-versed in such things), then James is Baby Cambridge's first cousin, once removed (unless such things don't reverse, and Baby Cambridge is only James's first cousin, once removed, since William and James are first cousins). Someone on this forum once informed me that term and concept of "once-removed" is not used in the UK, but only in the US. I have no idea if that is true, especially as I have heard British people use the "once-removed" term, and of course all these things can easily lead to confusion (including, perhaps, this post, as it's getting toward my bedtime and I'm starting to lose the power to properly articulate such things, lol).
__________________
  #2652  
Old 07-23-2013, 09:52 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
Hmm. I think the view expressed by Oxford allow of both perspectives (and the Wikipedia article forgets that kinship isn't always looked at from a lineal and outside perspective). But, we all seem to be agreed in first cousins - and once removed. James and William are first cousins, that's for sure. What James is, from Baby's perspective, seems not to be clear either from Oxford or Wikipedia's article.

My definition (and Goodenough's work) was based on interviewing people (all of whom were born around 1880-1920). They agreed with each other, but that doesn't mean that all people use the terms the same way.

What is clear though, is that James and William share the same grandparents, which is the definition of a first cousin. It gets tricky, when seen from William's perspective (for example) or Baby's perspective. Goodenough's informants had a system worked out that clearly delineated relationships without having to count grandparental generations (unlike Wikipedia's, whose system could result in different terms depending on which person in the chart is being talked about).

I think Goodenough was indeed trying to work out a watertight system (and that's why he's been criticized).

Since people seem to be mainly objected to James because of the close age of the two individuals in the story, I'm guessing "Andrew" would be okay (but what a strange choice, given the other circumstances).

If they could live with Philip, I'm sure everyone else will be happy with that. They both like pleasing others, they probably won't regret it. I like Alistair better than Alexander - is there someone in the family who is named Alexander that they've be referring to?
I'd choose Alistair William Philip Arthur if it were me...but it's not me!
I think we're in agreement regarding cousins now.

Alexander would be the "preferred" name because it's it's a Scottish monarchical name. Baby C would be (eventually) Alexander IV, I believe.
__________________
  #2653  
Old 07-23-2013, 10:00 PM
abcdxyz's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Columbus, Ohio, United States
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Alexander would be the "preferred" name because it's it's a Scottish monarchical name. Baby C would be (eventually) Alexander IV, I believe.
I'm not sure about that. James VI of Scotland became James I of England when he succeeded Elizabeth I. Wouldn't an Alexander (if he chose to reign with that name) be Alexander (I) of the United Kingdom?
__________________
  #2654  
Old 07-23-2013, 10:06 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by abcdxyz View Post

I'm not sure about that. James VI of Scotland became James I of England when he succeeded Elizabeth I. Wouldn't an Alexander (if he chose to reign with that name) be Alexander (I) of the United Kingdom?
James was James VI and I, his son was II and VII.

At some point during HM's reign it was determined that the monarch would go by whichever count is higher.

As for the whole "choosing to reign under a different name" within British history it's only happened 4 times - Robert II, Victoria, Edward VII, and George VI. In the case of Victoria it was to go by the name she'd used throughout her life, instead of her full name, Edward dropped one of his two given names, George came to reign under very special circumstances, and Robert didn't want to be associated with John Balliol. Every other monarch has used their first given name.
__________________
  #2655  
Old 07-23-2013, 10:10 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
^.^^^^
No, because there is now an agreement to use the highest regnal number of either the Scottish or English kings.
__________________
  #2656  
Old 07-23-2013, 10:14 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
James was James VI and I, his son was II and VII.

At some point during HM's reign it was determined that the monarch would go by whichever count is higher.

As for the whole "choosing to reign under a different name" within British history it's only happened 4 times - Robert II, Victoria, Edward VII, and George VI. In the case of Victoria it was to go by the name she'd used throughout her life, instead of her full name, Edward dropped one of his two given names, George came to reign under very special circumstances, and Robert didn't want to be associated with John Balliol. Every other monarch has used their first given name.
It was officially proposed by Winstron Churchill, but had been in practice since the act of Settlement, when the two thrones became one, that a monarch would rule by the higher number. It had raised some controvercy over both Edward and Elizabeth though.
__________________
  #2657  
Old 07-23-2013, 10:35 PM
Isabella E.'s Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hopkinton, United States
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
Hmm. I think the view expressed by Oxford allow of both perspectives (and the Wikipedia article forgets that kinship isn't always looked at from a lineal and outside perspective). But, we all seem to be agreed in first cousins - and once removed. James and William are first cousins, that's for sure. What James is, from Baby's perspective, seems not to be clear either from Oxford or Wikipedia's article.

My definition (and Goodenough's work) was based on interviewing people (all of whom were born around 1880-1920). They agreed with each other, but that doesn't mean that all people use the terms the same way.

What is clear though, is that James and William share the same grandparents, which is the definition of a first cousin. It gets tricky, when seen from William's perspective (for example) or Baby's perspective. Goodenough's informants had a system worked out that clearly delineated relationships without having to count grandparental generations (unlike Wikipedia's, whose system could result in different terms depending on which person in the chart is being talked about).

I think Goodenough was indeed trying to work out a watertight system (and that's why he's been criticized).

Since people seem to be mainly objected to James because of the close age of the two individuals in the story, I'm guessing "Andrew" would be okay (but what a strange choice, given the other circumstances).

If they could live with Philip, I'm sure everyone else will be happy with that. They both like pleasing others, they probably won't regret it. I like Alistair better than Alexander - is there someone in the family who is named Alexander that they've be referring to?
I'd choose Alistair William Philip Arthur if it were me...but it's not me!
The Queen's second name is Alexandra, so they could choose the masculine form to both honor her and give him his own unique name. Of course, they should honor the grandfathers and great grandfather by using names given to them. How about Alexander Michael Philip George? Or Alexander George Philip Michael? These names should satisfy everyone,
__________________
  #2658  
Old 07-23-2013, 10:38 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isabella View Post
According to the terminology as I've always known it (and I just double-checked this with a relative who is well-versed in such things), then James is Baby Cambridge's first cousin, once removed (unless such things don't reverse, and Baby Cambridge is only James's first cousin, once removed, since William and James are first cousins). Someone on this forum once informed me that term and concept of "once-removed" is not used in the UK, but only in the US. I have no idea if that is true, especially as I have heard British people use the "once-removed" term, and of course all these things can easily lead to confusion (including, perhaps, this post, as it's getting toward my bedtime and I'm starting to lose the power to properly articulate such things, lol).
Things must be reciprocal (all family members must have a term to call other family members, that's just how it works). So, it's possible (and Wikipedia seems to endorse this, although on the discussion page, many people disagree - so maybe no universal agreement?) Definitely, Baby is James's first cousin once removed (according to my family members, you, Goodenough, we're all agreeing on that).

But, according to my sources, James is Baby's second cousin. I think I've got that right. At any rate, Baby and James are not first cousins.

I always thought it was fun to run into people with my name, I doubt either kid would have a hard time of it (and Baby's second cousin James might even be honored by it - I would be).
__________________
  #2659  
Old 07-23-2013, 10:41 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NC, United States
Posts: 22
Isabella is right, Viscount Severn and the new baby are first cousins, once removed. Second cousins are those who share great-grandparents (like William and Arthur Chatto).

I don't think it would be a big deal if they named the baby James. Lots of families have more than one member with the same name, and I don't think many people would confuse Prince James of Cambridge with James, Viscount Severn.
__________________
  #2660  
Old 07-23-2013, 10:44 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: MO, United States
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by amaryllus View Post
Christopher, daniel or Tristan would work well also.
I like Christopher, I think that's a nice classic "new-to-the-BRF" yet still royal sounding (Kings Christopher I-III of Denmark, quite a few royals throughout history with that name, etc.) name. Daniel is okay but Tristan is kind of....eh. Too trendy sounding.

Other nice, new-to-the-BRF but still royal sounding names:

- Anthony (King Anthony of Saxony, numerous princes of other countries)
- Nicholas
- Joseph
- Peter
- Paul

Previously used in the BRF non-monarchial names that I like:
- Frederick
- Victor
- Alfred

A lot of trendier suggested names like Joshua, Gabriel, etc. are a bit too overtly biblical in nature for the BRF IMO.

I think any talk of the baby (or anyone else) using a name other than his first is silly talk. Sure, he can. But as has been said, it's done rarely and under very unique circumstances.

All of that being said, there's probably a 95% chance that the Cambridges pick a previous name used for a British monarch, a 4% chance that they use a name previously used by a non-monarch in the BRF, and a 1% chance that they use a name entirely new to the family.
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread


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
HRH Duke Carlos Javier (1970- ) and the Royal House of Bourbon-Parma: August 2010- Warren Royal Families of Italy 221 11-19-2014 09:34 AM
Potential Names and Godparents for Zara Phillips Tindall and Mike Tindall First Child Zonk The Princess Royal and Family 110 06-05-2014 04:47 AM
Baby Cambridge: Musings and Suggestions Zonk The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Family 3615 07-22-2013 02:30 AM
Possible names and godparents for Joachim & Marie's baby principessa Prince Joachim and Princess Marie and Family 390 07-26-2009 11:56 AM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman poland pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess mabel princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:42 PM.

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]