Baby Cambridge: Potential Names and Godparents

[IloveCP]

I hope the Cambridges only have sons.

May I ask why?

 

[NGalitzine]

^^^^
Sure. All boys avoids any issues around the new succession laws being passed in a rush and it avoids the possibility of a Princess or Queen Diana which would be fodder for the tabloids. Also when you have a future king you eventully are likely to get a future Queen Consort.

 

[Mariel]

William and Kate's wedding was so traditional that much of the music was either medieval or written to sound medieval (and very beautiful new "medieval" music). For this reason I think they might consult the Way Back Machine, and that "traditional" will mean old, really old, medieval. They could make an end run around all the monarchs who were steeped in controversy, were ill, were murdered, murdered too many others, etc. Way Back. I've already given a few Way Back names. The names of famous leaders in the 12th century (and late 11th and early 13th) were of people who lived in a blossoming era, who thought of themselves as making a world with all the best of tradition and the best of the new, like the new-fangled stone castles and churches. Great builders. Prince Charles knows this history and it is one reason he loves architecture and building.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Sure, but when was the last time a princess was named Eleanor? The last time one was named Matilda (after centuries of no Matildas in the family) was in 1751, and that one died as the exiled and disgraced queen of Denmark and Norway.

Royal Eleanors were not very lucky either. One spent many years imprisoned by her husband, one spent almost her entire life imprisoned by her uncle and cousin so that she could not claim the English crown (which she would have inherited under male-preferance primogeniture), one was so unpopular that Londoners almost stoned her to death, one was supposedly a leper, and one angered the Church by breaking her vow of chastity. To be honest, I am not surprised that there haven't been any Eleanors in the family since the Middle Ages

If every name that has some sort of bad association should be thrown away, there wouldn't be many names for them to use left Though I can't speak for the history of Matildas (other than the wonderful Empress Matilda, of course), I believe I have read somewhere that Princess Diana was very passionate about a daughter Eleanor (this could obviously be a rumour though), so that, I believe, would make the name even more attractive for them to use. Despite the fact that Eleanor of Aquitaine quite rightly was imprisoned by Henry II, she mainly is remembered for her intelligence and good sense of leadership, and I will bet that she is the Eleanor most people will think of when hearing the name. Eleanor of Aquitaine, despite the history of ill-fated Eleanors, is the epitome of a great namesake for a possible future Queen, and I still can't say that I see a reason for them to count it out (the same goes for Matilda).

 

[cornflakes]

I do think if they have a girl the name Diana will be either the 2nd or 3rd name. Could be Alexandra would be the first name. If a boy I think the name Philip or George would be contenders.

 

[Kotroman]

If every name that has some sort of bad association should be thrown away, there wouldn't be many names for them to use left Though I can't speak for the history of Matildas (other than the wonderful Empress Matilda, of course), I believe I have read somewhere that Princess Diana was very passionate about a daughter Eleanor (this could obviously be a rumour though), so that, I believe, would make the name even more attractive for them to use. Despite the fact that Eleanor of Aquitaine quite rightly was imprisoned by Henry II, she mainly is remembered for her intelligence and good sense of leadership, and I will bet that she is the Eleanor most people will think of when hearing the name. Eleanor of Aquitaine, despite the history of ill-fated Eleanors, is the epitome of a great namesake for a possible future Queen, and I still can't say that I see a reason for them to count it out (the same goes for Matilda).

I did not say that the names Matilda and Eleanor were unlikely because of the history of the namesakes. They are unlikely simply because... they are. None of the relatives bears one of those names and I don't see William and Catherine going all Frederik-and-Mary either (by naming their child after a medieval ancestor). To say the least, they are absolutely not doing that with the first name of the firstborn

 

[Mirabel]

William and Kate's wedding was so traditional that much of the music was either medieval or written to sound medieval (and very beautiful new "medieval" music). For this reason I think they might consult the Way Back Machine, and that "traditional" will mean old, really old, medieval. They could make an end run around all the monarchs who were steeped in controversy, were ill, were murdered, murdered too many others, etc. Way Back. I've already given a few Way Back names. The names of famous leaders in the 12th century (and late 11th and early 13th) were of people who lived in a blossoming era, who thought of themselves as making a world with all the best of tradition and the best of the new, like the new-fangled stone castles and churches. Great builders. Prince Charles knows this history and it is one reason he loves architecture and building.

Fine with me, as long as they don't choose Ethelred or Boadicea!

 

[Mirabel]

Royal Eleanors were not very lucky either. One spent many years imprisoned by her husband, one spent almost her entire life imprisoned by her uncle and cousin so that she could not claim the English crown (which she would have inherited under male-preferance primogeniture), one was so unpopular that Londoners almost stoned her to death, one was supposedly a leper, and one angered the Church by breaking her vow of chastity. To be honest, I am not surprised that there haven't been any Eleanors in the family since the Middle Ages

Which was supposedly a leper?

 

[Kotroman]

Edward II's daughter, Eleanor of Woodstock. According to the "Historical Dictionary of the British Monarchy", she actually stripped naked in front of the court to prove that she was not a leper. That's... interesting.

 

[rmay286]

Since it's July now and the baby will be born within a few weeks, here are my predictions for a girl: Victoria, Alexandra, Charlotte or Elizabeth. If not Elizabeth as a first name, I think it will be in there somewhere (the same with Diana). I think the names Catherine or Caroline could be in there somewhere as well (Caroline might be a good traditional way to honour Kate's mother?)

I don't have much idea for boy names. David, Alexander or Michael, with Philip and Charles as second or third names. Maybe even Philip as a first name?

For either girl or boy, I think William and Kate will choose a traditional name. They just seem like cautious people when it comes to styles.

 

[LaPrincesseJasmine]

My guess is a baby girl on the 14th of July who will be named: Alexandra Elizabeth Caroline Diana

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

I did not say that the names Matilda and Eleanor were unlikely because of the history of the namesakes. They are unlikely simply because... they are. None of the relatives bears one of those names and I don't see William and Catherine going all Frederik-and-Mary either (by naming their child after a medieval ancestor). To say the least, they are absolutely not doing that with the first name of the firstborn

Well, I guess we'll agree on disagreeing. I guess it must just be me, but I'd much prefer a name of my own than I'd want to share it with a relative. Again, that might be a matter of opinions Eleanor and Matilda are both old without sounding too old (as opposed to a name like George), and furthermore would Matilda be a lovely homage to Australia, but what do I know? They might choose a completely different name for all we know. Regarding that last line, do you know William and Catherine personally? Otherwise I doubt that you're in the position to judge whether they're "absolutely not doing" anything

 

[NGalitzine]

Well, I guess we'll agree on disagreeing. I guess it must just be me, but I'd much prefer a name of my own than I'd want to share it with a relative. Again, that might be a matter of opinions Eleanor and Matilda are both old without sounding too old (as opposed to a name like George), and furthermore would Matilda be a lovely homage to Australia, but what do I know? They might choose a completely different name for all we know. Regarding that last line, do you know William and Catherine personally? Otherwise I doubt that you're in the position to judge whether they're "absolutely not doing" anything

The name might be a homage to Australia, but the story associated with the famous Aussie song is not an especially happy one:
"
The title is Australian slang for travelling by foot with one's goods (waltzing, derived from the German auf der Walz) in a "Matilda" (bag) slung over one's back.[2] The song narrates the story of an itinerant worker, or "swagman", making a drink of tea at a bush camp and capturing a sheep to eat. When the sheep's owner arrives with three police officers to arrest the worker for the theft, the worker commits suicide by drowning himself in the nearby watering hole, after which his ghost haunts the site."

 

[Roslyn]

Fine with me, as long as they don't choose Ethelred or Boadicea!

Oh I think Boadicea would be a splendid choice!

People could give her swords as christening gifts. Like the one she holds in my avi.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Which spelling would they use?

The older one - Boadicea or the more accepted modern one Boudicca - with the older soft 'c' and then the 'e' and 'a' pronounced separately or the hard 'k' sound with just the 'a' as is the now accepted pronounciation of the name of the Iceni Queen who challenged Rome resulting in the deaths and mutilations of 100,000s of Britons and Romans, through war and then starvation (the Britons were so convinced that they would win they didn't both sowing their crops that summer and so had no food for the subsequent winter).

 

[Kotroman]

Well, I guess we'll agree on disagreeing. I guess it must just be me, but I'd much prefer a name of my own than I'd want to share it with a relative. Again, that might be a matter of opinions Eleanor and Matilda are both old without sounding too old (as opposed to a name like George), and furthermore would Matilda be a lovely homage to Australia, but what do I know? They might choose a completely different name for all we know.

Oh, I am not saying that I do not like the names. They are both great, but if we are going to be realistic, we have to admit that they are simply very unlikely choices. As I said, I would be thrilled if they named their baby Malcolm/Alexander/David/Robert/Margaret (basically if they took the name out of the list of Scottish monarchs), but I am aware that the chances of that happening are very, very slim

I guess it must just be me, but I'd much prefer a name of my own than I'd want to share it with a relative.

Regarding that last line, do you know William and Catherine personally? Otherwise I doubt that you're in the position to judge whether they're "absolutely not doing" anything

These two parts of your post just don't work well together, don't you think? Either we both can identify with them, or neither of us can

 

[Countessmeout]

^^^^
Sure. All boys avoids any issues around the new succession laws being passed in a rush and it avoids the possibility of a Princess or Queen Diana which would be fodder for the tabloids. Also when you have a future king you eventully are likely to get a future Queen Consort.

Of course, why would we want sexist laws over turned? Phew, bring on the boys.

Or William could just not name a child Diana.

Oh my god, we may get a queen consort? So exciting, I didn't think of that possibility. A queen consort, throw out the changes to the laws, queen consorts are so fabulous, we should only have kings.Who needs those darn things called prince consorts.

 

[NGalitzine]

Of course, why would we want sexist laws over turned? Phew, bring on the boys.

Or William could just not name a child Diana.

Oh my god, we may get a queen consort? So exciting, I didn't think of that possibility. A queen consort, throw out the changes to the laws, queen consorts are so fabulous, we should only have kings.Who needs those darn things called prince consorts.

Well that is not exactly what I said but your idea works just as well for me. Glad we are in agreement. Thanks.

 

[Roslyn]

Which spelling would they use?

The older one - Boadicea or the more accepted modern one Boudicca - with the older soft 'c' and then the 'e' and 'a' pronounced separately or the hard 'k' sound with just the 'a' as is the now accepted pronounciation of the name of the Iceni Queen who challenged Rome resulting in the deaths and mutilations of 100,000s of Britons and Romans, through war and then starvation (the Britons were so convinced that they would win they didn't both sowing their crops that summer and so had no food for the subsequent winter).

I favour the older spelling, because it's the one I grew up with. The modern one might be accepted now, but it sounds harsh to me. Either will do though.

Yes, her war against Rome didn't end well, but she had a pretty good reason for starting it, and she did well for a while. And at least she tried.

 

[monarchist-us]

Of course, why would we want sexist laws over turned? Phew, bring on the boys.

Or William could just not name a child Diana.

Oh my god, we may get a queen consort? So exciting, I didn't think of that possibility. A queen consort, throw out the changes to the laws, queen consorts are so fabulous, we should only have kings.Who needs those darn things called prince consorts.

I think what NGalitzine was saying is that having boys would remove the urgency to change the laws -- the laws would get changed eventually. But having a firstborn boy removes the need to rush any changes through since the direct line of succession would be all-male for at least two to three more decades and the law wouldn't be needed to prevent the possibility of a firstborn daughter being displaced as heir over a younger son.

I get that it's a symbolic issue, though. The law would be changed, but there'd be no urgency for it. I'm not rooting for one sex or the other, personally.

 

[Mariel]

Kotroman, taking the names from Scots royalty would still be "in the family" since the British royals are descended from the Scots royals Margaret, David, Robert and so forth.
Scots royals were, as much as the Brits, descended from a variety of ethnic groups, such as Normans, Celts, Bretons, Saxons, Hungarians, Flemings, and so forth. There were some terrible wars between England and Scotland. But a lot of the Norman Scots came from Britain (with threads going back to the Continent). For instance, Walter FitzAlan came from Bretons but was of the Norman culture in Shropshire, and brought a passel of Norman knights with him to Scotland, and the Norman knights were of a variety of ethnic backgrounds just as was Walter (the First High Steward). The history of Scotland, a melting pot of cultures, is fascinating.

 

[Pranter]

Isn't the (Scottish) surname Frasier thought to be of French origins...I've read that somewhere.


LaRae

 

[wymanda]

Cynthia | meaning of Cynthia | name Cynthia

According to this link the name Cynthia is directly linked to Diana. Would be an alternative and would also pay tribute to Williams Great Grandmonther Cynthia Hamilton (Countess Spencer)

Perhaps Elizabeth Cynthia Phillipa Caroline

 

[Princess B]

I have avert strong feeling its a boy!

I'd love the boy to be called Philip, but I see it being used as a middle name as opposed to a first name.

Looking at their wedding or choices even otherwise it's safe to say they'll stick to something traditional.

My guess is - George Philip Michael Charles
Henry David Albert George

For a girl, I'd love Charlotte.

Charlotte Alice Mary
Alexandra Diana Eugenie
Victoria Helena Caroline


I'd like Diana to be used, either as a first or middle name.

The baby will have her own identity. Even without the Diana name there are bound to be comparisons eg: the baby has Diana's eyes/nose/etc.

 

[tihkon2]

If it's a boy, I actually wouldn't be too surprised if they use Philip as a first name. It's been 450 years or so since King Philip of Spain was consort to Queen Mary I. The name is most associated with The Duke of Edinburgh in the general public's mind. If it's a girl, I have no idea, but also wouldn't be too surprised at a Princess Elizabeth Diana.

 

[Broadway Duchess]

I wouldn't be surprised if they went with Philip as a first name, either, tihkon2. Actually, it's my absolute top choice if a prince is born. I think that the Duke of Edinburgh has been such a presence in the life of the monarchy and his contributions can be overlooked sometimes. It would be a lovely tribute to the man who's had to walk two steps behind HMTQ for so long.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Philip would be such a lovely name for a boy and I'm sure that HM would agree with that.

Oh, I am not saying that I do not like the names. They are both great, but if we are going to be realistic, we have to admit that they are simply very unlikely choices. As I said, I would be thrilled if they named their baby Malcolm/Alexander/David/Robert/Margaret (basically if they took the name out of the list of Scottish monarchs), but I am aware that the chances of that happening are very, very slim

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think either of the names are unlikely, nor do I think that names like Alexander, David or Margaret are unlikely choices either (and I, like you, would be stoked if they chose a name from the list of Scottish monarch). I don't understand why those names are less workable than names like Victoria or George?

These two parts of your post just don't work well together, don't you think? Either we both can identify with them, or neither of us can

I actually have no clue what you mean by that. I merely stated that I personally wouldn't want to share my first name with a close relative, not that William and Catherine absolutely not are going to name their child the same as a close relative

 

[HRHHermione]

I wouldn't be surprised if they went with Philip as a first name, either, tihkon2. Actually, it's my absolute top choice if a prince is born. I think that the Duke of Edinburgh has been such a presence in the life of the monarchy and his contributions can be overlooked sometimes. It would be a lovely tribute to the man who's had to walk two steps behind HMTQ for so long.

It's my number one top choice for a boy too, and the reason I'm hoping for a boy, even though part of me would love to see the first British heiress apparent.

(The other reason that I'm hoping for a boy is that I'd love to see a little Princess Diana, and I think they'd be more likely to name a child after William's mother if she isn't directly in line to the throne)

 

[Mariel]

LaRae, I looked up "the name Frazier" and didn't get much in depth, but I would say the definition probably closest would be that it is Scottish of the Norman French variety and it means "of the woods", like a forester. In the 12th century, the Norman landholders spoke French among themselves and Latin in scholarly pursuits, only gradually incorporating some Gaelic and English into the mix. Or course there were other people still speaking forms of Gaelic and Breton.

 

[Broadway Duchess]

... I'd love to see a little Princess Diana, and I think they'd be more likely to name a child after William's mother if she isn't directly in line to the throne)

Me, too, HRHHermoine. I know about all of the comparison arguments and all, but let's be honest: this kid was going to have comparisons to its grandmother no matter the name or resemblance. I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I would love to see Diana's granddaughter carry her name.