He was always known as Bertie to his family - until the day he died.Eh, I bet he was just pleased to be able to dump the name Albert.
The continuity thing made a good excuse!
The Queen doesn't veto names, but may offer advice. In the case of Annabel, she reminded the Yorks that "Annabel's" is a very famous London night club which was often featured in gossip columns and might have embarrassing associations. So they had second thoughts. I hadn't heard that Beatrice was the Queen's suggestion.
This isn't true. Like any other British citizen, the sovereign may legally use any name s/he likes.
What about Princess Margaret Rose, who for some time was second in line to the throne? Neither of her names had previously been a BRF regnal name.
The reason for this was tied up with the abdication. Bertie chose to use the same regnal name as his father, to give the effect of continuity.
He was always known as Bertie to his family - until the day he died.
The idea being more a 'royal' name (and a British royal name) then a reignal name. Or all girls close to the throne would have to be Anne, Mary, Elizabeth or Victoria (Jane or Mathilda a little less). And technically there was a Queen Margret of Scotland, known as the maid of Norway, though she died before she ever got to Scotland. Beyond her there are numerous queen consorts. In Scotland the wives of Malcolm III, Alexander III, James III and James IV. In England the wives of Henry VI and Edward I.
Actually they wanted to name her Anne Margaret, so they would have used a reignal name, but it was vetoed by George V.
I don't think we have anything to worry with the Cambridges. They like their boring but popular names. I don't even see them branching into the older pre-Georgian family tree.
Sadly I agree. I would like to think they might surprise us with something different, but they do seem to be unimaginative. Let's be clear, by 'different' I don't mean anything unsuitable.
Why shouldn't it be a name that hasn't been used in the immediate BRF before? There was a first time for every regnal name and it is dull to recycle the same handful because of precedent. Andrew was a new name, so it can be done!
Sadly I agree. I would like to think they might surprise us with something different, but they do seem to be unimaginative. Let's be clear, by 'different' I don't mean anything unsuitable.
Why shouldn't it be a name that hasn't been used in the immediate BRF before? There was a first time for every regnal name and it is dull to recycle the same handful because of precedent. Andrew was a new name, so it can be done!
All families have rituals and traditions they adhere to, quite often especially re naming children. I think for the royals, using family names, especially for immediate heirs to the throne is a tradition that is bound to continue.
Some families today tend to go in the opposite direction with wild, weird and wacko names, especially some families involved in entertainment business: e.g., Apple Martin; North West, etc. I do like Suri Cruise (both of her names are unusual), and Shiloh Jolie-Pitt (although she wishes to be called John, and her parents are cool with her finding out and being comfortable with personal identity and gender).
It will be interesting to see if Meghan and Harry adhere to traditional family name choices when they have children.
The Scottish options are numerous:
Bruce Malcolm Stirling
Donald James Duncan
John David Edgar
Mary Catherine Sybilla
Margaret Joan Euphemia
Marjory Allison Maud
Likely contenders..or not?
Eh, I bet he was just pleased to be able to dump the name Albert.
The continuity thing made a good excuse!
All Scottish name? Not likely at all
They could perhaps include a Scottish name, 1 I would think most, as a nod to going to school there. But Bruce (surname), Stirling (castle), Marjory and Allison (Non royal) seem out there.
Andrew may have been new to the BRF but it wasn't some new name. It was of course for Philip's father. And the patron saint of Scotland. It was only new as a first name, as it was among Edward VIII's middle (along with Christian, he had all four patron saints of the UK). Its not exactly picking some random new name.
But why should he?And if tragedy struck (and almost did) and he had been heir to the throne, he had middle names he could have chosen to reign by (Edward and Albert).
William does like the name Alice
Exactly - that was my point. It was new as a first name in the BRF.
Anyway what's wrong with choosing a "random" new name, as long as it has suitable dignity?
But why should he?
There really is no need to repeat yourself about the connections of the name Andrew, of which I am well aware. I never said it was a "random" name.
You say "Because royalty is all about history and tradition-and stay relevant by keeping those traditions though with modernity."
I say that it doesn't have to be so rigid. We have recently seen children born into the direct lines of the royal families of Sweden and Denmark given names that (as far as I'm aware) aren't traditional family names.
Your argument is based on what has happened in the past. But the modern day BRF has moved with the times and there is no reason whatsoever why new names can't be introduced.
Examples of "random popular names" that would not be out of place include Olivia and Grace, Thomas and Daniel. (I am not saying that they are likely to be chosen by the Cambridges.)
I like the idea of a Thomas.. Prince Tommy !
My Paternal Grandfather was a Thomas, so the name is dear to me..
I like the idea of a Thomas.. Prince Tommy !
My Paternal Grandfather was a Thomas, so the name is dear to me..