Baby Cambridge: Potential Names and Godparents


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
If they name the baby Elizabeth or George, the family is in danger of sinking under its own weight, like a ship carrying more than its share of concrete and glue. It is not necessary to glue the family into tradition so tightly that it cannot breathe.
 
Thanks for Lady Paola Windsor's name, Brazillian
 
If they name the baby Elizabeth or George, the family is in danger of sinking under its own weight, like a ship carrying more than its share of concrete and glue. It is not necessary to glue the family into tradition so tightly that it cannot breathe.

I don't think it's that dangerous.

Naming the baby Elizabeth would be a great tribute after the Queen's 61 years on the Throne.

The prospect of a Queen Elizabeth III it's a good thing. Shows the link between the present and the future of the Monarchy. Remember that this baby will be reigning during the 22th century.
 
Yes!! I would love it if they went out on a limb and chose something entirely new (I don't think they will but I would cheer if they did) and with a great meaning.

Girls:

Antonia (priceless one)
Helena (bright, shining one)
Meredith (great ruler)
Honora (woman of honor)
Ada (noble)
Seraphina (light)


Boys:

Augustus (great, magnificent)
Ethan (strong, firm)
Frederick (peaceful ruler)
Aaron (exalted, uplifted)
Simon (listener)
Theodore (gift from God)

I'm sure you traditionalists will freak out at this- it's just meant as a light hearted lift to the same names repeated over and over in this thread.

Seraphina and Honora sound like celebrity baby names not royal (actually Ben Affleck and Jessica Alba would agree). Ethan is so over used, every kindergarten likely has 2 if not more in their class now.

Many of the names you have listed, have actually been suggested on here. They aren't new, and do have a royal history to them.

Frederick: The name seems to have started with the Hannoverians. Frederick, Elector the Palatinate, was grandfather of George I, first Hannoverian king. George's mother Sophia was his daughter with Elizabeth, daughter of James VI and I of England and Scotland. From him, we have:

Frederick, Prince of Wales: son of George II, father of George III
Prince Frederick- son of the above, died at age 15
Prince Frederick, Duke of York- second son of George III
Augustus Frederick- another son of George III
Lord Frederick Windsor- son of Prince Michael of Kent
Others like George V and two of his sons, had it as a middle name.


Augustus:Like Frederick, Hannoverian origins. George I's father was Ernest Augustus Duke of Brunswick-Lunenberg. It was a popular second name, the Hanoverians often having a double first name.

Ernest Augustus: George I's brother, but made Duke of York by his brother
William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland: son of George II
Edward Augustus, Duke of York and Albanny: younger brother of George III
Ernest Augustus of Hannover- son of George III
Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex- son of George III
The most recent use seems Lord Nicholas' son Leopold has it as a middle name.
The female Augusta has been used as well on a few occasions.

Simon has a bit of a royal history. Simon de Momford was Earl of Leicester. He married Eleanor of England, daughter of King John. He led the barons rebelion against his brother in law Henry III, and for a time, ran the first elected parliament in Europe. He was later killed in battle. His daughter Eleanor is considered the first woman to be known as Princess of Wales, by her marriage Llywelan. Not a great royal history for that name.

Theo,a short of Theodore, is a middle name of James, Edward's son.

Helena: form of both Helen and Eleanor, a name very common
Eleanor of Aquitane: wife of Henry II
Eleanor, Queen of Castille: daughter of Henry II
Eleanor of Brittany: daughter of Geoffrey, son of Henry II, imprisoned due to her claim being stronger then that of Uncle, King John or cousin Henry III
Eleanor of Provence: wife of Henry III
Eleanor of England: daughter of Henry II
eleanor, princess of wales: her daughter
Eleanor of Castille: wife of Edward I
Eleanor, Countess of Bar: daughter of Edward I
Eleanor of Woodstock: daughter of Edward II
Eleanor Brandon: granddaughter of Henry VII by Mary and Charles Brandon
Helena: daughter of queen victoria
Lady Helen Taylor: the daughter of the current Duke of Kent
again a name that has been used as a middle name as well.
 
If they name the baby Elizabeth or George, the family is in danger of sinking under its own weight, like a ship carrying more than its share of concrete and glue. It is not necessary to glue the family into tradition so tightly that it cannot breathe.

I agree with you on George - it's too much in too short of a time - but not Elizabeth. Elizabeth has only been seen twice in a regnant, although it has also been seen in consorts and princesses. It took about 400 years and 20 monarchs to hit 8 Henrys, and about 700 years and 32 monarchs to hit 8 Edwards. On the other hand, in 200 years and 10 monarchs we hit 6 Georges.

The only thing I am sure of is the couple will not use any of William's mother's names with their own children. William knows that is just too much for a royal child to carry. Other than that, I suspect regular run of the mill BRF names and I don't really have a favourite as long as it is a traditional royal name.

I would agree if William hadn't given Catherine his mother's engagement ring. I doubt one of Diana's names is going to be the first name if it's a girl, but I do see either Diana or Frances appearing in the middle names.
 
I agree with Mariel.

I believe that Queen Elizabeth II has been Queen for so long that it would be a disadvantage for the Cambridge baby to be named after her. If she's named Elizabeth she will forever be compared to her great grandmother. I think the future Queen should have an identity of her own, and therefore a name of her own, so she can make her own mark on royal history. She'll be part of the continuum in any event, but let her have her own name and not be just another Elizabeth. By all means make Elizabeth one of her names, but not the first.

A similar argument applies if she is named Diana, and I think there is more chance of that. William has lumbered his wife with his mother's engagement ring, and I can also see him burdening his daughter with his mother's name.
 
I agree with you on George - it's too much in too short of a time - but not Elizabeth. Elizabeth has only been seen twice in a regnant, although it has also been seen in consorts and princesses. It took about 400 years and 20 monarchs to hit 8 Henrys, and about 700 years and 32 monarchs to hit 8 Edwards. On the other hand, in 200 years and 10 monarchs we hit 6 Georges.

I think George has become a traditional name for the Hanoverian/Windsor Kings, like Frederik and Christian with the Danish Kings.

I'll support the Prince of Wales if he decides to reign as King Gerge VII, and I would like to see his grandson bearing the name George.
 
I do not think that William would do that to his father, I truly don't.

But as a back-stop, I do not see HMQ accepting Diana as a first name - Queen Diana is just not feasible.
 
Catherine was 'lumbered' by a ring? Passing jewellery down through generations is very common from what I've heard. The sky didn't fall because of Diana's ring. I think William and Harry honour their mother everyday of their lives and have no need to use any of their mother's names with their own children.

I donno... I wouldn't necessarily be overjoyed if I was given the engagement ring from a failed marriage.

I would assume (and hope) that before that particular ring was given to Catherine William discussed it with her - gave her the option of having it, having another heirloom ring, or having her own. I don't think she's been burdened by it any more than she's been burdened simply by being the wife of the son of Diana. This child, if it's a girl, is going to be burdened by the Diana comparison regardless of her name, so I hope they don't make it harder on her.
 
If they name the baby Elizabeth or George, the family is in danger of sinking under its own weight, like a ship carrying more than its share of concrete and glue. It is not necessary to glue the family into tradition so tightly that it cannot breathe.

Most of the population were not alive during the reign of George VI and those that were will certainly be dead when this child comes to the throne in 50 years. So a boy who becomes George VII I dont see as a problem. The same thing with a possible Elizabeth III. In 50 years time there will be a lot of people born for whom Elizabeth II is only a historical figure.
 
I agree with cepe, I doubt QEII would allow their first-born to be Diana if it were to be a girl. There's no need to "ad oil to the fire", it would be fine to honor the girl after Diana but as a middle name not a first name. I hope they leave that name to a girl Harry might have in the future.

I thought I read somewhere that Prince Haakon said that Ingrid-Alexandra would be called Ingrid-Alexandra, not just Ingrid. I thought he said this not to long after her birth. I really like the sound of Ingrid-Alexandra instead of just Ingrid. IMHO:flowers:
Ingrid's name doesn't have an hyphen, its simply Ingrid Alexandra, just because it doesn't have an hyphen doesn't mean you can't call her by her two names. However, Haakon, etc... call her Ingrid only has I seen in the videos, what He said before was to the media, to call her by her two names.
 
Catherine was 'lumbered' by a ring? Passing jewellery down through generations is very common from what I've heard.

Yes, it's very common for jewellery to be passed down through generations, and that's perfectly fine. It would be a shame if those jewels were not worn. And though it is my own view that a woman should have her own engagement ring, not someone else's hand-me-down, many people are fine with that.

But this is not just any hand-me-down. It is the ring Charles bought for Diana, and it is a very distinctive ring at that. Diana chose it, and it is reported that she said she chose it because it was the biggest. When I see that ring I think, 'that's Diana's engagement ring', and look how well that marriage worked out! Now, if Charles and Diana's marriage had been blissfully happy, I'd probably have a different view about William using it for Kate, but Charles & Diana's marriage was doomed before it started, so I don't think it was a good idea to weigh Kate down with that rock and all it symbolises.
 
Time passes and new generations have other memories. Hope its ok to do this, but this is the ad I see at the top of this page

Its not Diana's ring - it's Kate's.


 
I agree with cepe, I doubt QEII would allow their first-born to be Diana if it were to be a girl. There's no need to "ad oil to the fire", it would be fine to honor the girl after Diana but as a middle name not a first name. I hope they leave that name to a girl Harry might have in the future.


Ingrid's name doesn't have an hyphen, its simply Ingrid Alexandra, just because it doesn't have an hyphen doesn't mean you can't call her by her two names. However, Haakon, etc... call her Ingrid only has I seen in the videos, what He said before was to the media, to call her by her two names.

Though it doesn't have a hyphen, Alexandra is as much Ingrid's first name as Ingrid is. It's a double first name. A hyphen is not always used to refect this. If we look at both the Scandinavians and German royal traditions, a double first name has been quite common, and without a hyphen. Wax refers to Catharina-Amalia simply as Amalia (he refers to his girls as his three A's, or the triple A rating). I believe Haakon used to be called Magnus as a child. I'd find it off, if a child with a name as long as IA's, was called it in full by family and loved ones. Martha Louise, Carl Philip, Carl Gustav, and many other examples are out there.
 
I agree.

May I suggest some names for the poll?

Boy names:

George.
Edward.
Arthur.
William.
Henry.

Girl names:

Elizabeth.
Victoria.
Charlotte.
Alice.
Adelaide.

I still like Adelaide the most. Arthur for a boy going by that list.

I agree about honoring the Queen, but I'd like to see a new name.
 
Good point- that makes any of the historical royal names "new" as they are off the radar for the majority of people out there. For those of us interested in royals, we make the connections back to history... but a baby George or Victoria would soon be their own person and simply be another royal in a long string of others.
 
My girls don't know who Diana is. Its all Kate all the time

What a shame! I've noticed that a lot of young people these days tend to have no sense or, or interest in, history.
 
Oddly for me, the first memory of Diana I have, is her funeral. I had always been interested in British royal history, and the current queen (stemming from my grandmother, whose family worked for generations for the royal family in Scotland). My first royal obsession was Vikan (saw a people magazine article when she went to school in the US). I remember seeing Diana and landmines, but the news show was on Queen Noor, as they were together, and Noor was the one who caught my notice. I started looking more into Diana after watching her funeral. I was only 6 weeks old for the big royal wedding, the first I watched was Sophie and Edward's.

The reality is, media keeps Diana alive for those of us who remember her. Those who were born after she died, she won't be a big deal. My niece would say the same thing as your girls, that is Kate's ring.
 
What a shame! I've noticed that a lot of young people these days tend to have no sense or, or interest in, history.

I don't see not knowing who Diana is, as a shame. Diana is not history in that sense. She may have done some amazing things, but I'd not put her on the list of people to study in history class, like Churchill or Ghandi, at least not yet.
 
I don't see not knowing who Diana is, as a shame. Diana is not history in that sense. She may have done some amazing things, but I'd not put her on the list of people to study in history class, like Churchill or Ghandi, at least not yet.

I agree, she is more a cover story in People magazine than a subject for the history books. If she does get into the history books it should be as a footnote, rather like George IVs wife.
 
I don't see not knowing who Diana is, as a shame. Diana is not history in that sense. She may have done some amazing things, but I'd not put her on the list of people to study in history class, like Churchill or Ghandi, at least not yet.

It has been my observation that young people these days - and a lot of older people - have very little knowledge of, or interest in, things that don't directly affect them or what they didn't have to learn in school. I suppose I'm talking more about general knowledge than history. Many people have very little general knowledge. General knowledge doesn't seem to be praised as a good thing these days, whereas I'm sure it was when I was younger.

And I doubt much about Diana will stand the test of time and be taught in history classes. Maybe in media studies classes.
 
It has been my observation that young people these days - and a lot of older people - have very little knowledge of, or interest in, things that don't directly affect them or what they didn't have to learn in school. I suppose I'm talking more about general knowledge than history. Many people have very little general knowledge. General knowledge doesn't seem to be praised as a good thing these days, whereas I'm sure it was when I was younger.

And I doubt much about Diana will stand the test of time and be taught in history classes. Maybe in media studies classes.

More like abnormal psychology classes at the graduate level.

I've a brilliant idea! Why not name the child after the ring!

HRH Princess Sapphire of Cambridge! :flowers:
 
or Prince Gollum, also for the Ring
 
or Prince Gollum, also for the Ring

The worshippers of the People's Princess would not understand the reference. I'm afraid this child must be a girl and named Sapphire.

Sapphire Elizabeth Victoria Diamond.
 
The worshippers of the People's Princess would not understand the reference. I'm afraid this child must be a girl and named Sapphire.

Sapphire Elizabeth Victoria Diamond.

This baby will start a new order of chivalry: the Order of the Fellowship of the Ring.

But we have to think about girl names: Galadriel, maybe?
 
SApphire Ruby Pearl Emerald Diamond
 
This baby will start a new order of chivalry: the Order of the Fellowship of the Ring.

But we have to think about girl names: Galadriel, maybe?

Princess Galadriel? You've just killed 12 gray men with that suggestion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom