The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Chit Chat (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f235/)
-   -   Future Royal Baby Names (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f235/future-royal-baby-names-15346.html)

Mirabel 09-08-2017 08:34 AM

:previous:
I don't know...adventurous, imaginative names can be a pain later in life!
I think it's best to stick with classic, traditional names, especially if you are a member of the RF!

Moonmaiden23 09-08-2017 10:39 AM

Since Charlotte and Caroline are basically the same name-a female version of Charles - I doubt if the Cambridges would give the name Caroline to a second daughter.

I am hoping for Victoria, if it's another girl. I love that name.;)

CyrilVladisla 01-18-2018 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IloveCP (Post 1272986)
I doubt they will go for John.The british royals think that name is a curse.

I am quoting this because at times when a child is to be born in the British Royal Family an individual has suggested that John could be used for a boy. However, it is pointed out that John is unlucky because of the two demises: Prince Alexander, the youngest son of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra and Prince John, the youngest son of King George V and Queen Mary.
On July 25, 1970 a son was born to Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, and Katharine, Duchess of Kent. He was named Nicholas Charles Edward JONATHAN. If the name John is considered unlucky to British Royals, why did Lord Nicholas receive JONATHAN as a middle name?

Lee-Z 01-18-2018 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla (Post 2064626)
On July 25, 1970 a son was born to Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, and Katharine, Duchess of Kent. He was named Nicholas Charles Edward JONATHAN. If the name John is considered unlucky to British Royals, why did Lord Nicholas receive JONATHAN as a middle name?

Because John is a familyname from his mother's side (her grandfather and greatgrandfather are named John, afaik)?

Denville 01-18-2018 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla (Post 2064626)
I am quoting this because at times when a child is to be born in the British Royal Family an individual has suggested that John could be used for a boy. However, it is pointed out that John is unlucky because of the two demises: Prince Alexander, the youngest son of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra and Prince John, the youngest son of King George V and Queen Mary.
On July 25, 1970 a son was born to Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, and Katharine, Duchess of Kent. He was named Nicholas Charles Edward JONATHAN. If the name John is considered unlucky to British Royals, why did Lord Nicholas receive JONATHAN as a middle name?

jonathan is Not the same name as John.

Somebody 01-18-2018 03:58 PM

I would indeed say that choosing Jonathan indtead of John might actually proof the point that John itself is considered unlucky, so they picked a different name that has some resemblance (but with different roots; nobody would confuse them in Hebrew I guess) - the only thing they have in common is the reference to God.

Roots:
John from Yochanan = God is gracious
Jonathan from Yonathan = God has given
(God as in JHWH/Jehovah/Yahweh)

Denville 01-18-2018 05:12 PM

They are not the same name. I don't know why Nicholas Windsor has the name Jonathan but it is probalbly after a relative.. or godparent.

Countessmeout 01-18-2018 10:38 PM

While not the same name (in Hebrew), John is often used as a nickname for Johnathan/Jonothan, which leads to people's confusion.

Considering the abundance of John's in Katherine's family, it likely was chosen as an alternative to John. Katherine's mother Joyce was a scion of the Brummer baronetcy. Joyce's father, grandfather and great-grandfather were all named John. Joyce's father broke the pattern when he named his son Felix John, but Joyce's nephew, the current baron, is also John. Katherine had three older brothers. The youngest of them is named John, and the eldest of them had John as a middle name.

Its not uncommon to use another 'form' of a name to honor family. While in Hebrew, they are different names, in English they are often considered forms of each other (even if wrongly so).

Denville 01-19-2018 02:55 AM

Well I don't know anything about Kath Kents' famly but John is a pretty common name. however it is nothing to do with Jonathan as a name. And I don't see that there would have been an issue with using John as a middle name... it has even been used by the RF as a "called name" but I think that after the sad cases of Q Mary's son John dying young and Q Alexandra's baby dying at birth, the RF aren't likey to use it for some time more, as the "given name".

CyrilVladisla 01-19-2018 02:48 PM

Queen Alexandra's son was actually Prince Alexander John. Why do the British Royals not consider Alexander unlucky?

Ish 01-19-2018 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla (Post 2065089)
Queen Alexandra's son was actually Prince Alexander John. Why do the British Royals not consider Alexander unlucky?


John has a long history of being an unfortunate name in the BRF, and is most considered unlucky because of Prince John, son of George VI and Mary (the most recent holder).

Alexander has a much more varied history and is generally considered okay because while some holders did not fair well (like Alexander John), others have - it helps that the feminine forms were in Queen Victoria and Queen Alexandra’s names. It is also the name of three Scottish Kings, who I don’t believe are remembered negatively - in contrast to John of England who is remembered very negatively and John Balliol (of Scotland), who likewise... not remembered very fondly.

Denville 01-19-2018 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla (Post 2065089)
Queen Alexandra's son was actually Prince Alexander John. Why do the British Royals not consider Alexander unlucky?

why would they?

Curryong 01-19-2018 03:06 PM

There were several relatives, monarchs bearing the name Alexander when Alexandra and Bertie's son was born, notably the father in law of Alexandra's sister Dagmar/Marie of Russia, and Marie's husband was also an Alexander, so it probably wouldn't have been considered very diplomatic to reject the name, whereas 'John' was fairly generic.

I do think it was the death of young John, King George V's son, that put the final seal on it being considered unlucky, though. And after all, the sole John who was an English monarch wasn't exactly a popular fellow!

Denville 01-19-2018 03:16 PM

I thnk that Alexandra's baby was called Alexander after her, and John because it was an old English name - he was intended to be known as John. But then the poor liltte thing died at birth. So that made the name which had not been used for ages and ages, seem unlucky. Then George V's little son was ill and died young. so I think that the RF just don't like the name..

CyrilVladisla 07-15-2018 09:32 PM

It would be nice if a male heir, a future King of Sweden, was given the name of Johan (John). There has not been a King Johan of Sweden since Johan III was King from 1568 to 1592.

Friedrich Karl II 07-15-2018 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla (Post 2133763)
It would be nice if a male heir, a future King of Sweden, was given the name of Johan (John). There has not been a King Johan of Sweden since Johan III was King from 1568 to 1592.




It would be intresting if Estelle will give rher firstborn child name which was used only rarely or not very long time.


And it would be nice to see king Magnus on throne of modern Norway. That names hasn't been used since Middle Ages when Norway was independent kingdom.

CyrilVladisla 08-11-2018 09:16 PM

It would be nice if a male heir, a future King of Spain, was given the name of Sancho. There has not been a Sancho since Sancho VII was King of Navarre from 1194 until 1234 and Sancho IV was King of Castile from 1248 until 1295.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises