Should Names Be Anglicized?

[CyrilVladisla]

Queen Victoria's eldest daughter went from Victoria with a c to a k when she married Prince Friedrich of Prussia.
I wonder how her mother the Queen addressed the envelope: Victoria or Viktoria.

 

[Prinsara]

Queen Victoria's eldest daughter went from Victoria with a c to a k when she married Prince Friedrich of Prussia.
I wonder how her mother the Queen addressed the envelope: Victoria or Viktoria.

I don't know whether "Prinzessin Friedrich Wilhelm" was the style, but soon it went to "Kronprinzessin" and then "Kaiserin". I don't think her personal name got used much. In the envelope I am very sure she was always "Vicky".

I don't think names should be locally-adapted by media and readers, especially not modern ones, unless there is some pressing reason. Not only does it help with identification, but how hard is it to remember someone's name? If you wouldn't change the names of your neighbors or your colleagues, why do it for royals?

 

[Mbruno]

Queen Victoria's eldest daughter went from Victoria with a c to a k when she married Prince Friedrich of Prussia.
I wonder how her mother the Queen addressed the envelope: Victoria or Viktoria.

Sometimes even in the same language there are different variants for the same name.


For example, the traditional form of the name Philip in Portuguese is Filipe with two letters 'i'. However, many boys in Brazil are now registered as Felipe with an 'e' like in Spanish. Maybe the confusion arises from the fact that, in many dialects of Brazilian Portuguese, a pretonic 'e' followed by a stressed syllable with an 'i' actually sounds like 'i', so the pronunciations of Filipe and Felipe are almost identical. That doesn't happen in European Portuguese where the 'e' in Felipe would be pronounced probably as a French schwa and, accordingly, Filipe and Felipe sound clearly different.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I don't think names should be locally-adapted by media and readers, especially not modern ones, unless there is some pressing reason. Not only does it help with identification, but how hard is it to remember someone's name? If you wouldn't change the names of your neighbors or your colleagues, why do it for royals?

Because your neighbors or your colleagues live in 2021 and presumably spell their name consistently across all languages which utilize the same alphabet. In contrast, most deceased European royals lived in an era when names were locally-adapted into any language not only by the media or readers, but by everybody, including the royals themselves.

As I asked above: If a medieval person used a dozen spellings in several languages to refer to themselves throughout the course of their life, which spelling should be considered "the" spelling?

 

[Prinsara]

Because your neighbors or your colleagues live in 2021 and presumably spell their name consistently across all languages which utilize the same alphabet. In contrast, most deceased European royals lived in an era when names were locally-adapted into any language not only by the media or readers, but by everybody, including the royals themselves.

As I asked above: If a medieval person used a dozen spellings in several languages to refer to themselves throughout the course of their life, which spelling should be considered "the" spelling?

Considering you can see the wives of Henry VIII spelled multiple ways in multiple media, it seems the current consensus is "there is no spelling".

But spelling is not local adaption/anglicization.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Considering you can see the wives of Henry VIII spelled multiple ways in multiple media, it seems the current consensus is "there is no spelling".

But spelling is not local adaption/anglicization.

Indeed. So, given that even a single "local adaptation" may have no consistent spelling, I am not sure how one would choose between the half-dozen local adaptations used by a person during their lifetime, let alone the dozens of spellings making up each local adaptation.

 

[Prinsara]

Indeed. So, given that even a single "local adaptation" may have no consistent spelling, I am not sure how one would choose between the half-dozen local adaptations used by a person during their lifetime, let alone the dozens of spellings making up each local adaptation.

Modern-day stuff is one argument. I don't think King Felipe should be Philip in the UK, or Prince Charles should be Carlos in Spain. There's just no reason for it, and it edges on discourtesy.

On the other hand, the Spanish queen who was married to Ferdinand (not Fernando) is always called Isabella in English, for whatever reason. Change it to Isabel or Elizabeth 500 years later, and no one would know who you meant. "Whatever is most recognized" is a strong argument to keep.

Now when you get into arcane academia with no standard spelling, then there's a lot of room for variation. But that's more identification, primarily, than adapting names to the local culture.

 

[janelarn]

In Spain, all names are "Spanishized". It is normal use. For example, the Prince of Wales, Charles, will always be Carlos in Spain.
I love knowing how they do it in other countries. Thank you all

 

[Somebody]

Previously foreign royals' names might have been converted to a Dutch-version of their name (if readily available) but nowadays that is hardly done. Most people would consider it odd if newspapers would be writing about 'Koning Filip van Spanje' (Felipe), 'Groothertog Hendrik van Luxemburg' (Henri) or 'Koning Karel Gustaaf van Zweden' (Carl Gustaf); and it would always be 'prins Charles' and 'prins William'; not 'prins Karel' or 'prins Willem' to refer to the prince of Wales and his son (unless the media use their peerage titles). Of course, they will use the Belgian king's Dutch name; as he himself uses both the French and Dutch version.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Modern-day stuff is one argument. I don't think King Felipe should be Philip in the UK, or Prince Charles should be Carlos in Spain. There's just no reason for it, and it edges on discourtesy.

On the other hand, the Spanish queen who was married to Ferdinand (not Fernando) is always called Isabella in English, for whatever reason. Change it to Isabel or Elizabeth 500 years later, and no one would know who you meant. "Whatever is most recognized" is a strong argument to keep.

But neither case involves the problem I was addressing. King Felipe VI and Prince Charles are present-day royals who follow the present-day rule of unchanged spelling regardless of language. Queen Isabel(la) I lived 500 years ago, but she is recognized as monarch of the present-day nation of Spain, so representing her name in present-day Castilian Spanish (which is not the same as the 15th-century Castilian Spanish in which she spoke or wrote) would be an obvious choice if one does not anglicize it.

Let me ask using another example: Which modern language would you recognize as "unadapted" for representing the names of a medieval monarch of Luxembourg? Count Henri (French), Count Heinrich (German), or Count Hari (Luxembourgish)?

 

[Prinsara]

Let me ask using another example: Which modern language would you recognize as "unadapted" for representing the names of a medieval monarch of Luxembourg? Count Henri (French), Count Heinrich (German), or Count Hari (Luxembourgish)?

Henri in places that speak French and Heinrich in places that speak German, obviously. I don't know how they determine these things in English. (Presumably not by coin flip.) Perhaps Henri in the UK due to the historical French influence, but is there any good reason not to call him Henry?

 

[kathia_sophia]

In Spain, all names are "Spanishized". It is normal use. For example, the Prince of Wales, Charles, will always be Carlos in Spain.
I love knowing how they do it in other countries. Thank you all

We have a mix in Portugal. Elizabeth is Isabel and Charles is known as Carlos (Anne as Ana, Andrew as André and Edward as Eduardo). However, Kate is still Kate. And so is William and Harry as William and Harry. Diana also remains the same since Diana is a portuguese name.


EDIT:


Japanese people say "Erizabesu" to pronounce the Queen's name. Charles is Chāruzu and Catherine is Kyasarin. Felipe is Feripe and Leonor is Reonōru. Victoria is Bikutoria and Estelle is Esuteru.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Henri in places that speak French and Heinrich in places that speak German, obviously. I don't know how they determine these things in English. (Presumably not by coin flip.) Perhaps Henri in the UK due to the historical French influence, but is there any good reason not to call him Henry?

The discussion was about whether to anglicize names, so the question would be about "places that speak English". The normal usage would indeed be to call him Henry - and the same applies for other medieval rulers, because multilingualism was the norm of that era.

 

[Prinsara]

Japanese people say "Erizabesu" to pronounce the Queen's name. Charles is Chāruzu and Catherine is Kyasarin. Felipe is Feripe and Leonor is Reonōru. Victoria is Bikutoria and Estelle is Esuteru.

That's not "changing the name to the local variant", though. That's how you render foreign/Western names in Japanese. It's just katakana pronunciation; it's still the exact same name. If you use Japanese pronunciation, it sounds pretty much the same.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Wikipedia states: Isabella I of Castile (Spanish: Isabel I.)
Sometimes her mother Isabella is referred to as Isabel. Which is correct?

 

[Kataryn]

Let me ask using another example: Which modern language would you recognize as "unadapted" for representing the names of a medieval monarch of Luxembourg? Count Henri (French), Count Heinrich (German), or Count Hari (Luxembourgish)?

Why Luxemburg? Till revolutionary troups made Luxemburg a part of France in 1795, it was a part of the Holy Roman Empire. Most of the Counts and later Dukes of Luxemburg came from famous German families like the Wigerichs, Limburgs, Wettins, Wittelsbachs and of course the Habsburgs. After the congress in Vienna the equally German Nassaus took over, but adapted to the preferred French language. I don't see why you can't use the German names till the Nassaus.

 

[Alison H]

Some of it is totally illogical. "Mad King Ludwig" of Bavaria is always referred to in English as "Ludwig". But Ludwig of Hesse, Queen Victoria's son-in-law, his close contemporary, is only ever referred to in English as "Louis".

 

[janelarn]

We have a mix in Portugal. Elizabeth is Isabel and Charles is known as Carlos (Anne as Ana, Andrew as André and Edward as Eduardo). However, Kate is still Kate. And so is William and Harry as William and Harry. Diana also remains the same since Diana is a portuguese name.

Oh, true. I forgot to say Diana, it's Spanish too and it doesn't change, but the pronunciation does.
And Kate is Kate, because in Spanish she would be Catalina and it is difficult to have a "Cati" in Spanish, although not impossible, but it sounds weird:jajaja:

 

[Mbruno]

Wikipedia states: Isabella I of Castile (Spanish: Isabel I.)
Sometimes her mother Isabella is referred to as Isabel. Which is correct?

There is no right or wrong. Isabel is her name in Spanish and Isabella is how she is known in the English-speaking countries. As someone else said, if you referred to the Catholic queen as Isabel I rather than Isabella I, most English speakers would not know whom you are talking about.


So the golden rule is to stick with the name that is most commonly used in your respective country or language.

 

[Moran]

In Bulgaria, we usually go by the tradition established here with the most famous historical figures. I support this approach but only to an extent. Especially in fiction, I have come to insist (and argue with publishers) that there is no reason to stick to some form that wouldn't be recognized in the respective royal's country. I literally had trouble figuring out who the hell Isabel I of England was. (A Spanish book with a solid chunk of English history, this was.) I was fed up with correcting it all through the book as well. (There were legitimate Isabels there, so I couldn't just Replace). It wasn't that I wasn't versed in history or that it wasn't clear from the text. It was. It was just so shocking to see this form used for the literally most famous Queen in the history of the British Isles.



Of course, in a way it's easier for us since we use the Cyrillic alphabet which visually differentiates Isabel from Изабел. With Isabel and Isabella, it isn't so easy. Overall, I think linguistic traditions of the recipient country regarding historical figures should be followed to some extent but not always and at any cost. And regarding current royals, I see no reason why anyone shoud anglicize them. I distincrly remember having a long argument over Fernando of Aragon actually being Fernando in Bulgarian, instead of the established Ferdinand. I was accused of breaking traditions, wanting to lecture university lecturers older and smarter than me and whatnot. I wasn't surprised. What surprised me was that a rather older, experienced editor actually took my side.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

What should be done about the names of Italian Royalty?
Some sources state King Francesco II of the Two Sicilies.
Other sources state King Francis II of the Two Sicilies.

 

[Tarlita]

Cyril I also noticed lots of different spellings with certain Russian names over the years. Also Czar and Tsar.
Both are correct I think. When I look at King Francesco I think oh well that's the Italian way. King Francis is the French way. That's how I interpret things anyway.