NGalitzine
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 5,276
- City
- Toronto (ON) & London (UK)
- Country
- Canada
Just a minor correction for above. The Earl of Ulsters names are Alexander Patrick Gregers Richard
Melissa-dates back to ancient greek myth, 16th century Italian lit, and 18th century Scottish poetry to name a few, nothing modern there.
Allison dates back to the middle ages where it was a nickname in Norman speaking areas, for Alice.
Dereks have been found in the low countries since the 14 hundreds.
Caitlin is a very old Irish form of Catherine
Names like Ashton and Cody originated as surnames. It has become popular to use family names as first names, but the names are still historical. I believe in the southern us, it was a tradition in some places, it is traditional.
Many last names stemmed from first names. Malcolm son of Keneth would have been known Malcom MacKeneth. His son instead of being James MacMalcolm, continued using MacKeneth, and family names started there. Names like Brody and Logan, also very popular names now a days, are old Scottish clan names.
If you read what I wrote, you'll notice that I wasn't talking about Royal children in general, I was talking about direct heirs to the Throne.
When Her Majesty named her son Charles, she's was doing something extraordinay, because the two previous King Charles weren't very successful.
I realize that you were talking specifically about the heir, my point was that in general the Queen and her eldest son don't seem to base the names they choose for their children on the lives of the predecessors who had it - just looking at the heirs, neither Charles nor William are necessarily good monarchical names due to the predecessors, but they are the names of the first and second in the line of succession.
Just a minor correction for above. The Earl of Ulsters names are Alexander Patrick Gregers Richard
I think if it is a boy, Peter will be one of the names after Peter Francis Middleton, her paternal grandfather who died shortly before the engagement was announced
Apparently. His death was cited as one of the reasons the engagement announcement was delayed because she was upset. Also, (I'm doing this from memory) during WWII he served in Canada and she wanted to see where that was on the tour. Sorry not to be more specific.
The DM ran this story about him
Kate Middleton pays tribute to pilot who knocked V1 missiles off course with his plane's wing | Mail Online
I wouldn't name my son my brothers name. There's way to many names in the world for them to go with James. Besides I doubt William would want that...if anything I think he'd want his son to have his name before anyone elses.
I dont think they will use Francis/Frances now, with the new Pope.
Charles is an exception, but William III and William IV were very good Kings.
If they want Francis/Frances as one of the names, they wont give 2 hoots because of the Pope. They will choose names they want and not care about links to others. I think that Peter or Frances/Francis is possible as a secondary name.
........someone already told me this days ago. I didn't need to be told again. My reading skills are perfectly fine.
As the Brits often take a reignal name, it doesn't neccesarily have to be the name they would reign with.
They don't actually often do this. Most Brits have used as their regnal name their first given name, with few exceptions. The early post-conquest monarchs all had cognomens (from William I to Henry IV), as did William III. Most (if not all) of the pre-Hanover monarchs only had one given name, which was then their regnal name. Of the Hanovers/Windsors, most monarchs used their first given name (usually George), with only 3 choosing to use a different name - Victoria, Edward VII and George VI. In Victoria's case, her name had been Alexandrina Victoria, but her title from birth was Princess Victoria, so she reigned under that. Edward VII had been the double-barrelled Albert Edward and dropped the Edward so as to not diminish the status of his father. One would presume that had Edward's eldest son, Albert Victor, come to the throne he would have dropped one name too. George VI chose to not use his given name, also Albert, because of a desire to stress the link to his late father, George V, and probably continue the tradition of dropping the Albert set by Edward VII.
I would guess that in all likelihood the name chosen for this baby will be the name it rules under. The monarchy is known more by name than by title now than it was in the time of the two Berties - who would have been known better as The Prince of Wales and The Duke of York prior to their ascensions - so the days of different regnal names might be behind us. Unless of course Charles does decide to eschew his first name and is crowned George VII, in which case I wouldn't be surprised to see George become the traditional regnal name in the future (disappointed perhaps, but not surprised).
Think you mean dropped the Albert.
I am still betting on traditional names for this traditional royal couple:
Catherine Diana Elizabeth Carol or
William Charles Philip Michael
Catherine and William are royal names. and parents in the United States name their children after themselves. Maybe that is the custom in Europe and Royal Circles.
I don't think we'll see William or Catherine as a first name just because nowadays it's much rarer to name a child after his or her parent. That seemed much more common in the past.
After all, it's pretty evident with the string of King Georges (I-IV) in the UK...although there was a Frederick in there (Prince of Wales, father of George III) who would have been King.
I could see Charles though. I wonder what the possibility would be, if the child is a boy and his first name is Charles, that he would be known under a double name (publicly, if not privately) until Charles' accession? (i.e. "Prince Charles Henry" or the like.)
Brazilian- I think your suggestion is pretty likely, though I might replace Arthur with Charles. I could see them honoring both grandfathers.