Baby Cambridge: Potential Names and Godparents

[BrazilianEmpire]

In Brazil, Catholics doesn't choose a middle name at Confirmation. Maybe because middle names aren't so common here.

My father comes from a Catholic family, and he and his sisters received, at birth, middle names honoring Saints. My father was named Luiz, after St. Louis.

I have a middle name (Isaac) because having a middle name is a tradition at my mother's Jewish family. My mother's middle name is Raquel. And my sister's middle name is Rebecca.

 

[Mariel]

Poppy your list of boy and girl names is well done. With some of my favorites at the tops of each.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Some site (don't ask me which, I don't remember) is reporting that Will and Kate have their boy named picked out: Phillip.

It would be a wonderful tribute is this is true.

 

[monarchist-us]

Picking a name which is the same as very high profile current politicians, particularly a name such as Julia or Antonia which have no royal pedigree in this country, could well be interpreted (wrongly) as an indirect preference for that particular politician. Julia Gillard is often referred to simply as 'Julia' in Australia. The name has become synonymous with her as an individual.

I just feel that the RF are very, very conscious of their actions being regarded as indicative of political views. I don't think there's a cat in hell's chance that either of those names would be picked anyway though.

I dunno. I definitely see where you're coming from on that, but I don't think that anyone would really believe that the BRF is close to an openly republican politician.

And "Julia" has historical roots for the family -- Princess Julia (née Hauke) is the ancestress of the entire Mountbatten clan, ergo Philip, Charles, William, and the baby. That and the July birth would make it totally explainable.

Probably a slim chance of anything unused by the BRF being picked, but we'll never know til the big day!

 

[Artemisia]

Some site (don't ask me which, I don't remember) is reporting that Will and Kate have their boy named picked out: Phillip.

It would be a wonderful tribute is this is true.

I can see Philip as a middle name or as a name of a younger son but definitely not the first-born one. Otherwise, there would be the whole issue of Philip of Spain and whether he was regarded as King (Regnant) of England or not.

At this point, I'd say only William and Kate, and possibly their respective parents and siblings, are aware of the name of the baby. That is, assuming they have actually chosen a name by now.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

Some site (don't ask me which, I don't remember) is reporting that Will and Kate have their boy named picked out: Phillip.

It would be a wonderful tribute is this is true.

It's here, Gracie:

Kate and William's royal baby may be named Philip after Duke of Edinburgh | Royals | Entertainment | STV

But I don't think Philip will be the first name will be Philip. I'm sure will be among the middle names, but will not be the first.

 

[Ish]

Edward VIII went by David in his personal life, well at least within the family, and his sister's name was actually Victoria, but was known as Mary, her last name.

Out of all the Kings, and Queen, since Victoria, only two went by the name which they, and their family knew them as. Come to think of Victoria wasn't Victoria's first given name, but it was the name she was known as all her life.

We have no idea what Charles, William, or any future monarch will go as. It has been rumoured it will be be George though. As you say they can go for any of their names.

While Edward VIII went by David, he was formally Prince Edward.

There are only 3 monarchs since William I who have used a name as their regnal name that was not their first name to begin with - Victoria, Edward VII, and George VI (the two Berties).

Victoria's first name was Alexandrina, but she had always been known as Princess Victoria - it was the name she identified with and was identified with. Edward VII had been known as Prince Albert Edward, with the expectation that he would one day be King Albert Edward (and that after him every king would be Albert Something), but he decided that he wanted to leave the Albert behind and preserve it for his father (I've always suspected that the fact that he and his parents didn't have the best of relationships played heavily into this). George VI also had the Albert name, but chose to go with George in order to emphasis his relationship with his father, owing to the crisis under which he came to the throne.

If we're considering recent monarchs to be the ones that have come to the throne in the last 200 years, then there have been 6 kings and 2 queens, and of those 8 individuals 5 went by their first given name regardless of what they were known by within the family, 1 went by the name she was known by popularly despite it not being her first name, 1 went by one of the two names he was known by popularly, and 1 changed his name.

Actually, by that account we can say that only one monarch since William I has technically changed his name - the others simply had double barreled names and chose to go with the one that they preferred for their regnal name.

 

[Ish]

I can see Philip as a middle name or as a name of a younger son but definitely not the first-born one. Otherwise, there would be the whole issue of Philip of Spain and whether he was regarded as King (Regnant) of England or not.

At this point, I'd say only William and Kate, and possibly their respective parents and siblings, are aware of the name of the baby. That is, assuming they have actually chosen a name by now.

I'm with you on the idea that only the Cambridges and possibly close family know the names they've chosen (if in fact they don't know the gender, they'll have at least wo sets of names).

I disagree about Philip causing future numbering problems. Philip of Spain was not a regnant, he was at best a consort who wielded extra power owing to him being a him and the regnant being a she, major issues for the time. The only consort who was also a regnant was William III, but there were special circumstances there.

 

[Frideswide]

Edward VIII went by David in his personal life, well at least within the family, and his sister's name was actually Victoria, but was known as Mary, her last name. Out of all the Kings, and Queen, since Victoria, only two went by the name which they, and their family knew them as.

But we were talking about their first given names, not what names were used privately. Are you including HM the Queen in your two examples? because her family name is supposedly Lilibet.

The two exceptions since Victoria are Edward VII, who chose not to use his first name of Albert because he felt it was too closely associated with his father the late Prince Consort. And conversely George VI chose to use his late father's name for continuity following the trauma of the Abdication. These were choices made for specific reasons.

We have no idea what Charles, William, or any future monarch will go as. It has been rumoured it will be be George though.

I would appreciate it if someone could point me to a source where Prince Charles has said he will reign as George. Personally I can see no reason why he would not use his own name, and would be astonished if he did not.

 

[poppy7]

While Edward VIII went by David, he was formally Prince Edward.

There are only 3 monarchs since William I who have used a name as their regnal name that was not their first name to begin with - Victoria, Edward VII, and George VI (the two Berties).

Victoria's first name was Alexandrina, but she had always been known as Princess Victoria - it was the name she identified with and was identified with. Edward VII had been known as Prince Albert Edward, with the expectation that he would one day be King Albert Edward (and that after him every king would be Albert Something), but he decided that he wanted to leave the Albert behind and preserve it for his father (I've always suspected that the fact that he and his parents didn't have the best of relationships played heavily into this). George VI also had the Albert name, but chose to go with George in order to emphasis his relationship with his father, owing to the crisis under which he came to the throne.

If we're considering recent monarchs to be the ones that have come to the throne in the last 200 years, then there have been 6 kings and 2 queens, and of those 8 individuals 5 went by their first given name regardless of what they were known by within the family, 1 went by the name she was known by popularly despite it not being her first name, 1 went by one of the two names he was known by popularly, and 1 changed his name.

Actually, by that account we can say that only one monarch since William I has technically changed his name - the others simply had double barreled names and chose to go with the one that they preferred for their regnal name.

I'm aware! However, it is no longer a given. They can choose whichever of their names they like, and in recent reigns many have regardless of true names, known names or whatever.

 

[poppy7]

But we were talking about their first given names, not what names were used privately. Are you including HM the Queen in your two examples? because her family name is supposedly Lilibet.

The two exceptions since Victoria are Edward VII, who chose not to use his first name of Albert because he felt it was too closely associated with his father the late Prince Consort. And conversely George VI chose to use his late father's name for continuity following the trauma of the Abdication. These were choices made for specific reasons.



I would appreciate it if someone could point me to a source where Prince Charles has said he will reign as George. Personally I can see no reason why he would not use his own name, and would be astonished if he did not.

And if you were French or Irish Catholic (or yester year) and your actually name was Mary or Marie or Jean but no one actually called you that.

A family nickname is hardly the same as the name you are known by, by everyone in your family.

To my knowledge he has never said it, that being in rather bad taste, but it has been discussed, rumoured, suggested, whatever you want to call it that he will choose because some people (and this is again people discussing it in public) consider Charles to be too related to the Stuarts. Not my idea, I didn't say it, as far as I know he hasn't said it, but it has been said.

 

[Frideswide]

And if you were French or Irish Catholic (or yester year) and your actually name was Mary or Marie or Jean but no one actually called you that.

I don't understand your point. What has this to do with regnal names?

To my knowledge he has never said it, that being in rather bad taste, but it has been discussed, rumoured, suggested, whatever you want to call it that he will choose because some people (and this is again people discussing it in public) consider Charles to be too related to the Stuarts. Not my idea, I didn't say it, as far as I know he hasn't said it, but it has been said.

Thank you, but I was asking for a source.

I think they will go for something traditional, but with a twist to it. William and Harrry were after all names with a bit of a twist when they came along. I also think that people are forgetting that British monarchs, except for the women, in recent history have not taken their own name when becomie monarch.

I can't think of any names that are much more traditional in the BRF than William and Henry/Harry, being the names of 12 kings and numerous princes. Where is the "twist"?

 

[poppy7]

I don't understand your point. What has this to do with regnal names?


Thank you, but I was asking for a source.



I can't think of any names that are much more traditional in the BRF than William and Henry/Harry, being the names of 12 kings and numerous princes. Where is the "twist"?

Nothing only they can pick whichever name they want, which was my one and only point.

Often mentioned on T.V by acadamic media types. Look it up you will find it discussed in various newspapers I am sure.

At the time they were, don't ask why, thry just were in the media. General public knolwedge it a bit different from people with an actual interest and people's memories are often short when it comes to previous kings, unless you are Henry, Charles or George. People would probably think calling the child Maud would be the biggest twist ever but of course there was a Princess Maud.

 

[HRHHermione]

Some site (don't ask me which, I don't remember) is reporting that Will and Kate have their boy named picked out: Phillip.

It would be a wonderful tribute is this is true.

I've had that as a frontrunner for awhile now- I agree it would be a totally appropriate and lovely way to honor the Duke of Edinburgh, and I'd love for them to choose it.

 

[Frideswide]

Nothing only they can pick whichever name they want, which was my one and only point.

Often mentioned on T.V by acadamic media types. Look it up you will find it discussed in various newspapers I am sure.

At the time they were, don't ask why, thry just were in the media. General public knolwedge it a bit different from people with an actual interest and people's memories are often short when it comes to previous kings, unless you are Henry, Charles or George. People would probably think calling the child Maud would be the biggest twist ever but of course there was a Princess Maud.

So no twist then.

Actually there is nothing to stop anyone in the UK from using any name they choose (provided it is not for fraudulent purposes), even if it does not appear on their birth certificate . So I assume the situation is no different for the Sovereign. Charles could reign as King Jayden if he fancied.

Your comments about Charles reigning as George are quite typical. Everyone seems to have heard this but no one can point to an informed source. Of course I have looked it up, but nothing I have found amounts to more than hearsay and speculation.

 

[Skippyboo]

The using of George by Charles is like defender of faiths line he supposedly said but Charles isn't going to on record with things he would do as king when his mother is alive. There is no advantage for Charles to use George unlike during the abdication. Most people know of George Vi as Colin Firth in the Kings Speech. They also probably don't know that Colin was Helen Mirrens dad.

 

[Frideswide]

Since we are all agreed that the Sovereign can use any name as a regnal name, you could say that it takes the pressure off the parents of a potential heir to the throne. No need to avoid certain names as first names because they aren't "royal" enough - they don't have to be used when the time comes. So why worry

 

[monarchist-us]

Since we are all agreed that the Sovereign can use any name as a regnal name, you could say that it takes the pressure off the parents of a potential heir to the throne. No need to avoid certain names as first names because they aren't "royal" enough - they don't have to be used when the time comes. So why worry

Princess Neveah Marie or Prince Brayden Jethro it is! Reigning as Elizabeth III or George VII (or will it be VIII?!?!--stay tuned!), respectively.

 

[poppy7]

but nothing I have found amounts to more than hearsay and speculation.

But its all hearsay and speculation... it hasn't and won't come from Charles and never will. It's what 'experts' in these areas discuss.

 

[Ish]

The Charles as George thing was reported in a 2005 Times article titled "Call me George, suggests Charles" by Andrew Pierce - I believe the article is still available on the Times website, but you have to have a subscription. The official line from Clarence House, as of then, is that "No decision has been made and it will be made at the time." The whole George thing really is based on a rumour that a paper reported 8 years ago.

The whole thing is discussed here: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/charles-as-king-choice-of-regnal-name-32617.html

 

[Frideswide]

The Charles as George thing was reported in a 2005 Times article titled "Call me George, suggests Charles" by Andrew Pierce - I believe the article is still available on the Times website, but you have to have a subscription. The official line from Clarence House, as of then, is that "No decision has been made and it will be made at the time." The whole George thing really is based on a rumour that a paper reported 8 years ago.

The whole thing is discussed here: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/charles-as-king-choice-of-regnal-name-32617.html

I'm sure this suggestion was going around long before 2005. I remember discussing it with my late mother, and she died in the 1990s. I should love to know where it really started.

 

[Ish]

I'm sure this suggestion was going around long before 2005. I remember discussing it with my late mother, and she died in the 1990s. I should love to know where it really started.

I'm sure people had the idea before 2005, but it was in 2005 that it was first suggested to have been what Charles himself was thinking.

The idea of him reigning as something other than Charles has probably existed since the day his name was announced, owing to the predecessors with that name. It's just like if the Cambridge baby is named Annabel, it'll be suggested that she'll take a different regnal name one day.

 

[Frideswide]

I'm sure people had the idea before 2005, but it was in 2005 that it was first suggested to have been what Charles himself was thinking.

The idea of him reigning as something other than Charles has probably existed since the day his name was announced, owing to the predecessors with that name. It's just like if the Cambridge baby is named Annabel, it'll be suggested that she'll take a different regnal name one day.

No - as I said, it had come up long before then. That it was Charles's intention to use George as his regnal name. I am not saying that there was any truth in it, just that it had already been broached (presumably in the media) many years before.

 

[NGalitzine]

What has Charles' possible regnal name have to do with names & godparents of Baby Cambridge? There is an existing thread to speculate about the name Charles might reign under already.

 

[poppy7]

What has Charles' possible regnal name have to do with names & godparents of Baby Cambridge? There is an existing thread to speculate about the name Charles might reign under already.

Yes babynames:

A couple more to my pre-existing list

Maud
Tatiana
Oliver

But if I was really willing to put money on it I'd go A Girl: Sophia, Alice or Charlotte and for a Boy: Arthur or Theodore. I don't know they are very pretty names, suitably 'royal' whatever that means, but quite simple.

 

[Frideswide]

What has Charles' possible regnal name have to do with names & godparents of Baby Cambridge? There is an existing thread to speculate about the name Charles might reign under already.

Because people are discussing whether certain names are "regal" enough for a direct heir to the throne. We have observed that a sovereign does not always use his/her first given name as regnal name. There has been a slight digression, but the essential point is relevant.

 

[Mariel]

Princess Maud: She became Queen of Norway. her husband was the second son of the Danish king, and he and Maud retired to a peaceful life in Denmark. Then they were called to be King and Queen of Norway, and their son changed his name to Olav to be more Norwegian. So I read.

A current Norwegian Princess (forget her name) named her daughter Maud Angelica. This is a wonderful example of how a name combination can soar. She named her daughter after her ancestor Queen Maud but added something to Maud that made it sparkle. Maybe not "regnal", but nice.

More Maud information. My husband grew up in an area where there were some Japanese farmers. One of the farmers and his wife loved the name Maud because it sounded so Japanese. It was spelled, however, Maude (May-U-Dee). So their daughter became Maude (May-U-Dee).

And more: Maud is supposedly a shortening of Madeleine among the British. How to make Maud regnal: Change it back to Madeleine.

 

[poppy7]

Princess Maud: She became Queen of Norway. her husband was the second son of the Danish king, and he and Maud retired to a peaceful life in Denmark. Then they were called to be King and Queen of Norway, and their son changed his name to Olav to be more Norwegian. So I read.

A current Norwegian Princess (forget her name) named her daughter Maud Angelica. This is a wonderful example of how a name combination can soar. She named her daughter after her ancestor Queen Maud but added something to Maud that made it sparkle. Maybe not "regnal", but nice.

More Maud information. My husband grew up in an area where there were some Japanese farmers. One of the farmers and his wife loved the name Maud because it sounded so Japanese. It was spelled, however, Maude (May-U-Dee). So their daughter became Maude (May-U-Dee).

And more: Maud is supposedly a shortening of Madeleine among the British. How to make Maud regnal: Change it back to Madeleine.

That is a great story and a wonderful name. I don't think they will go for Madeleine although its a beautiful name, Maybe though you never know.

Whatever the girls name it will be followed by Elizabeth Diana. Figure they will give her four names so probably ........ Elizabeth Diana Caroline, after everyone. If I boy I expect ............. Phillip Carl to be in there (for some reason I don't think it will be Charles.

 

[Frideswide]

Maud is supposedly a shortening of Madeleine among the British. How to make Maud regnal: Change it back to Madeleine.

I've never heard of a Madeleine being called Maud. Maud is an old-fashioned shortening of Matilda. Henry I's daughter Matilda was often referred to as the Empress Maud.

I did once know a Maureen who was known as Maud.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Princess Maud: She became Queen of Norway. her husband was the second son of the Danish king, and he and Maud retired to a peaceful life in Denmark. Then they were called to be King and Queen of Norway, and their son changed his name to Olav to be more Norwegian. So I read.

A current Norwegian Princess (forget her name) named her daughter Maud Angelica. This is a wonderful example of how a name combination can soar. She named her daughter after her ancestor Queen Maud but added something to Maud that made it sparkle. Maybe not "regnal", but nice.

More Maud information. My husband grew up in an area where there were some Japanese farmers. One of the farmers and his wife loved the name Maud because it sounded so Japanese. It was spelled, however, Maude (May-U-Dee). So their daughter became Maude (May-U-Dee).

And more: Maud is supposedly a shortening of Madeleine among the British. How to make Maud regnal: Change it back to Madeleine.

Maud is a BRF name - we might see it.

Princess Maud Elizabeth.