Possible Names for the 2nd Child of the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge

[Skippyboo]

I'm not sure why you mention Philip there. If it's a prince, I wouldn't in the slightest be surprised if he's called Philip.



Elizabeth is a different matter. It's not just a question of a name for a future grandkid, though; It's a name for a future monarch. As you say, it's not a given that George will grow up, marry or have kids.We can add Mary I, Elizabeth I, Anne and James II to the long list of younger siblings who inherited. There's also the eventuality that a generation will be skipped at some point, as happened with the Edward the Black Prince, Frederick Prince of Wales and, more recently with King Carl XVI Gustaf succeeding his grandfather in Sweden. Nevertheless, if everything evolves in the natural order, the first born baby of George will be the sovereign and the second child of William won't. It is my feeling that although they may well choose Elizabeth as a middle name for a princess, they are unlikely to choose it as the first, leaving the possibility open for George's first born daughter to become Princess Elizabeth & later Queen Elizabeth III without having a royal aunt with the same name.

There has only been four names of Queen Regents- Mary, Elizabeth, Anne & Victoria. There isn't a rule that an heir has to be named after a previous monarch. Even if there are 2 Princess Elizabeths, you can aunt from niece by the territorial designation that George's daughter would have. Plus maybe George names his first born Catherine or Charlotte or some thing else or he has a boy first.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Andy T]

There has only been four names of Queen Regents- Mary, Elizabeth, Anne & Victoria. There isn't a rule that an heir has to be named after a previous monarch. Even if there are 2 Princess Elizabeths, you can aunt from niece by the territorial designation that George's daughter would have. Plus maybe George names his first born Catherine or Charlotte or some thing else or he has a boy first.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Of course. There's nothing to dispute in anything you say. It's just my personal hunch that they will avoid certain names with the future in mind. Maybe it's already been decided that we'll have a Princess Elizabeth or a Prince Charles and then again maybe they'll call the newborn Matilda, Philippa, Jeremy or Nigel. We'll see.

 

[Osipi]

The first given name sometimes isn't always the regnal name chosen by a monarch too when we think about it. It is very possible that W&K could name their 2nd child Daisy Mae Elizabeth (of course if its a girl) and should something happen that she ascends the throne instead of her older brother, she very well could declare that she will reign as Elizabeth III.

With this in mind, I don't see any of the royal family ever "saving" a name for a future heir apparent.

 

[Curryong]

We tend to think of the name Victoria as being a traditional royal name now, of course, because of all those female descendants of the old Queen. However, it wasn't a name that had popped up in the British royal family before, as far as I know, and only came about because King George IV was annoyed at her christening and snapped "Name her after her mother" when Georgina was suggested.

I know it was a second name after Alexandrina, (which I'm very glad Victoria jettisoned when she came to the throne) but really, the name Victoria wasn't a popular one in Britain at the time and came out of left field.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

We tend to think of the name Victoria as being a traditional royal name now, of course, because of all those female descendants of the old Queen. However, it wasn't a name that had popped up in the British royal family before, as far as I know, and only came about because King George IV was annoyed at her christening and snapped "Name her after her mother" when Georgina was suggested.

I know it was a second name after Alexandrina, (which I'm very glad Victoria jettisoned when she came to the throne) but really, the name Victoria wasn't a popular one in Britain at the time and came out of left field.

You are right - in 1819 Victoria was a continental bourgeois name and positively outlandish in Britain. Then again, I don't think they expected her to ascend the throne.

 

[royal rob]

William and Kate said they just liked the names for George. They are not going to explain their choices for him or the next one. So we don't know if they were honoring someone or not. Louis can be explained as one of William's name so they are honoring him but we don't that for certain.

The Queen's names is the only one that is pretty straight forward where they got the names from. Everybody else is just speculation unless they come out and say it.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I agree they used the names they liked I think they will do the same this time and won't explain why


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Ish]

You are right - in 1819 Victoria was a continental bourgeois name and positively outlandish in Britain. Then again, I don't think they expected her to ascend the throne.

It was a possibility that she would ascend to the throne, as she was the first child in the line of succession at the time of her birth (although it didn't become more of a given until she was older). I remember reading somewhere once that while her parents wanted to use more traditional names for her - Georgina/Georgiana, Charlotte, Augusta - her uncle vetoed them because he didn't want to confirm that she was very likely to succeed. Victoria, of course, came from her mother, while Alexandrina was a feminine form of the name of one of her godparents, Alexander I of Russia. I believe the official reason why Georgina was vetoed was because it was not appropriate to name her for the Russian monarch before naming her for the British one (Alexandrina Georgina), but nor would it be appropriate to slight the Russian monarch by puting his name second.

 

[Frideswide]

You are right - in 1819 Victoria was a continental bourgeois name and positively outlandish in Britain.

And it did not catch on with the general public. Victoria didn't become a popular name until well into the 20th century. I have read that most Victorians would have thought it presumptuous to name a daughter after Queen Victoria!

 

[Skippyboo]

If one wants to "honour" someone, one would usually give that person's first forename. Using one of their middle names is rather an oblique way of doing it, surely? Their middle names were likely given in honour of someone else.

Example: The Prince of Wales is Charles Philip Arthur George. (Philip after his father, obviously).
If I wanted to "honour" the PoW, I would give the child the name Charles as a first or middle name - not Philip.

If they use Frances as part of the new baby's name if it's a girl- most everyone is going to say it's for Diana.

My friend found out she was going have a little boy last spring. Her husband has the middle name of Lee so does his father. Before they did the sonogram to find out, they agreed that if it was a boy then they would use Lee as the middle name. So all spring we were trying out first names to go with Lee which wouldn't sound like a NASCAR driver. They settled on Benjamin Lee. He is tied to his father and grandfather thru his middle name and went he grows up and has a son he might choose to pass the middle name down again.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Frideswide]

If they use Frances as part of the new baby's name if it's a girl- most everyone is going to say it's for Diana.

It depends who you mean by "everyone". I doubt that the majority of people are aware, or would remember, that Diana's middle name was Frances. There is a whole generation who don't remember her, or have never even heard of her.

Diana was presumably given the name after her mother, Frances. (She in turn was Frances Ruth after her own mother Ruth Lady Fermoy.) So it makes no sense to me to name a child after her great-grandmother, if it's her grandmother that you actually want to commemorate.

 

[AdmirerUS]

It depends who you mean by "everyone". I doubt that the majority of people are aware, or would remember, that Diana's middle name was Frances. There is a whole generation who don't remember her, or have never even heard of her.

Diana was presumably given the name after her mother, Frances. (She in turn was Frances Ruth after her own mother Ruth Lady Fermoy.) So it makes no sense to me to name a child after her great-grandmother, if it's her grandmother that you actually want to commemorate.

I disagree. The majority of all people at this point don't remember Diana much or at all, much less how she is associated with Frances. But it is possible (becasue we do not know) that Wills and Kate associate Diana with the name Frances in some way. In naming children after or in memory of someone, few people in that child's life ever hears the backstory. But the family does it just the same. Because they want to.
It's the same thing as not wanting to name a child with a name associated with bad stuff for the family. You don't hear the why - but there is an intimate reason.
Unless they tell us why, we will never know the why behind the name.

 

[Lee-Z]

If they use Frances as part of the new baby's name if it's a girl- most everyone is going to say it's for Diana.

Imo whatever names they will give to baby, there will be people who try to find a link to Diana with those names (and i'm sure that a link will be found, no matter how much W&K will deny it)

 

[Frideswide]

I disagree. The majority of all people at this point don't remember Diana much or at all, much less how she is associated with Frances. But it is possible (becasue we do not know) that Wills and Kate associate Diana with the name Frances in some way. In naming children after or in memory of someone, few people in that child's life ever hears the backstory. But the family does it just the same. Because they want to.
It's the same thing as not wanting to name a child with a name associated with bad stuff for the family. You don't hear the why - but there is an intimate reason.
Unless they tell us why, we will never know the why behind the name.

What exactly did you disagree with? You repeated the same point I made.

I still think that William is far more likely to associate the name Frances with his grandmother - because it was her name! Kate of course wouldn't have known Diana, so would have no personal associations.

 

[Skippyboo]

I know the middle names of my immediate family. I would think that William & Kate do too. So maybe Harry called dibs on Diana as a child's name or they are trying to be subtle so they use a middle name shared by both sides of the family.

Whatever this baby is called, there are going to be articles trying to explain the names and their historical references. Alice is the current favorite and if it's used and newspapers are going to reference that is was the name of Philip's mother, the middle name of Princess Anne, the name of the Duke of Gloucester's mother etc. William never met his paternal great grand mother. He could be a closeted Brady Bunch fan or Kate who wrote her thesis at St Andrews about Lewis Carroll may just love Alice in Wonderland. They are never going to say so it will all be speculation but W&K will know why.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Frideswide]

I know the middle names of my immediate family. I would think that William & Kate do too.

Naturally. I didn't suggest otherwise.

 

[AdmirerUS]

What exactly did you disagree with? You repeated the same point I made.

I still think that William is far more likely to associate the name Frances with his grandmother - because it was her name! Kate of course wouldn't have known Diana, so would have no personal associations.

Well, your last paragraph... and the fact that we cannot know what they are thinking. Thanks for asking.

 

[Frideswide]

Well, your last paragraph... and the fact that we cannot know what they are thinking. Thanks for asking.

"Diana was presumably given the name after her mother, Frances. (She in turn was Frances Ruth after her own mother Ruth Lady Fermoy.) So it makes no sense to me to name a child after her great-grandmother, if it's her grandmother that you actually want to commemorate."

You disagreed with that? Doesn't seem very contentious to me. But you're welcome.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Imo whatever names they will give to baby, there will be people who try to find a link to Diana with those names (and i'm sure that a link will be found, no matter how much W&K will deny it)

The press did that with George's names pointing out that all three were Spencer cousin's names and ignoring the fact that all three were also Windsor names.

 

[Lady Nimue]

If the baby is a girl, it makes sense to me that William would want to honor his mother in some way. I could see Diana being one of the names, rather than using Frances to reference Diana. I'd be surprised if Diana wasn't in the name.

 

[Queen Camilla]

I do not see a reason to honor Diana if they did not honor Charles.

Diana is dead. Charles is 66, is he going to outlive George?

If you honor one parent and not the other what does that say?

Why not honor the person while they are still alive so they know they are being honored?

 

[Iluvbertie]

As George is one of Charles' names it could be argued that they did honour him. If that was the case then Frances for a girl would be honouring Diana in a similar way.

 

[Frideswide]

As George is one of Charles' names it could be argued that they did honour him. If that was the case then Frances for a girl would be honouring Diana in a similar way.

I don't get this argument, I really don't. Diana was named Frances after her mother, so the reference would be to the child's great-grandmother. In the same way, the George in Charles's name is most likely after his grandfather, George VI.

 

[Osipi]

I really don't expect them to name the child after anyone with an obvious close connection to the family as far as the first given name goes. Maybe its just me but I think Will and Kate are intelligent enough to realize that naming their child "Diana" or "Charles" or "Elizabeth" etc would drive the media and the rest of the world into a frenzy with comparisons, expectations and such. I believe they want their children to have and to forge their own identities and it will start with their names.

Only possibility I could see would be to name a princess Mary to compliment George in respect to King George VI and Queen Mary. Great great grandparents are somewhat distant in the past for their children's generation but yet historical.

Then again I could be totally way off base.

 

[Sunshine62]

I think it will be

Charlotte Victoria Elizabeth for a girl and
Louis Michael Charles for a boy.

Although I don't think William will have a daughter without honouring his mother 'in some way' so I guess Diana might be in there somewhere but definitely not as a first name.... or maybe they will come up with something different altogether, who knows!

 

[Frideswide]

If it's a girl, it wouldn't surprise me if they gave her just two names. George got three names instead of the expected four, so they might go with something like Mary Elizabeth.
She might be known by both names in childhood, eg Princess Mary Elizabeth - and possibly drop one of the names when she grew up, as Princess Margaret Rose became Princess Margaret.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't get this argument, I really don't. Diana was named Frances after her mother, so the reference would be to the child's great-grandmother. In the same way, the George in Charles's name is most likely after his grandfather, George VI.

Regardless of whom Charles was named after with the George it is still one of his names and so using George could have been a subtle way of honouring Charles without being too obvious and the same with Frances - again one of Diana's names regardless of whom it came from to Diana it was still one of Diana's names.

My middle name is the same as my mother's, grandmother's and great-great-grandmother's but it is still MY name as well. If one of my children decide to use that name according to you they will be honouring a relative the never met rather than me - the one who also holds that name.

Just a note - I think the George was more for George V - whose actual name it was or Uncle George who died during the war (the late Duke of Kent) than for the 'created' name of George VI who was called Bertie by his family.

Only possibility I could see would be to name a princess Mary to compliment George in respect to King George VI and Queen Mary. Great great grandparents are somewhat distant in the past for their children's generation but yet historical.

Then again I could be totally way off base.

George VI will be this child's great-great-grandfather but Queen Mary is another generation back and so the great-great-great-grandmother.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

How about one of the middle names spelled backwards? Would it still be obviously to honor someone?

Pillihp
Anaid (I think that is an actual name somewhere)
Secnarf
Lorac ( I like that one too, Anaid-Lorac)
Yram
Htebazile
Selrahc
Divad
Ruhtra

And my personal favorite...
Allimac....



charles

elizabeth

 

[Osipi]

George VI will be this child's great-great-grandfather but Queen Mary is another generation back and so the great-great-great-grandmother.

Thanks for the correction on that. I think the couple I had in mind was George V and Queen Mary. Them greats are a constant source of comfuzzlement for me.

 

[Frideswide]

My middle name is the same as my mother's, grandmother's and great-great-grandmother's but it is still MY name as well. If one of my children decide to use that name according to you they will be honouring a relative the never met rather than me - the one who also holds that name.

Yes, I think it's slightly different when the same middle name is repeated through several generations. It becomes more of a family name than a personal name.



Just to expand a bit on my earlier points. I only associate one forename with a person, and that is the one they're known by. I very seldom think of their other forenames, and in many cases I don't know them. A lot of people don't even like their other names, which are often bestowed for family reasons. So if I wanted to remember someone, I would use the name I knew them by, otherwise it seems pointless.

(Occasionally someone is known by a double name, say Marie Louise for example, but I think of that as a single name in such cases.)

 

[Skippyboo]

How about one of the middle names spelled backwards? Would it still be obviously to honor someone?



Pillihp

Anaid (I think that is an actual name somewhere)

Secnarf

Lorac ( I like that one too, Anaid-Lorac)

Yram

Htebazile

Selrahc

Divad

Ruhtra



And my personal favorite...

Allimac....







charles



elizabeth

Former Boston Red Sox SS Nomar Garciaparra - Full name Anthony Nomar. Nomar is his dad's name backwards Ramon.

It's been done before ?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community