Should Names Be Anglicized?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

wanderer11220

Commoner
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
13
City
Brooklyn
Country
United States
I don't know about you, but I've been having a bit of a mini-controversy between my royalist friends and myself over whether to anglicize royal names. They had no idea who I was talking about when I brought up John Charles of Spain. I always anglicize, since it makes it easier to compare monarchs with different names in different countries, like HRE Charles V, who was also Karl, Carl and Carlos. Is it more appropriate to use their name as is, or can we anglicize it?
 
I'm not a fan of anglicizing royal names. It always annoys me when people call the Russian rulers by English names (Peter II the Great, Catherine II the Great, Nicholas I, Nicholas II, etc). I think the names should be kept authentic, because the person is not English, but Russian (or whatever country we're talking about). I guess I'm used to saying 'Juan Carlos' when talking about the Spanish monarch, so I would keep the name as it were. I remember when I still lived in Russia, the reporters referred to Elizabeth II as 'Elizaveta II', and it confused the daylight out of me. I kept thinking that Her Majesty was Russian, rather than English. And I still get annoyed with the Russian news when they refer to the Duchess of Cambridge as 'Yekaterina' rather than 'Catherine' (at least that's how my grandmother calls her, and when I asked where she got the russified version, she told me 'on the Russian television station').
 
I'm not a fan of anglicizing royal names. It always annoys me when people call the Russian rulers by English names (Peter II the Great, Catherine II the Great, Nicholas I, Nicholas II, etc). I think the names should be kept authentic, because the person is not English, but Russian (or whatever country we're talking about). I guess I'm used to saying 'Juan Carlos' when talking about the Spanish monarch, so I would keep the name as it were. I remember when I still lived in Russia, the reporters referred to Elizabeth II as 'Elizaveta II', and it confused the daylight out of me. I kept thinking that Her Majesty was Russian, rather than English. And I still get annoyed with the Russian news when they refer to the Duchess of Cambridge as 'Yekaterina' rather than 'Catherine' (at least that's how my grandmother calls her, and when I asked where she got the russified version, she told me 'on the Russian television station').
But what about the Charles V example? People would assume Karl V, Carlos I, etc to be different people wouldn't they?
 
But what about the Charles V example? People would assume Karl V, Carlos I, etc to be different people wouldn't they?

Honestly? I haven't got the foggiest clue :unsure:. I've never heard of Charles being referred to by any other name rather than 'Charles' (probably because there was no equivalent for his name in Russian). The only time I've heard anyone call him 'Carlos' was in my sophomore Spanish class, when we were discussing the British Royals (it was after Diana's passing). I think in that case, I knew whom the teacher was talking about, because there was a contextual clue. However, I can see where some confusion can take place.
 
Honestly? I haven't got the foggiest clue :unsure:. I've never heard of Charles being referred to by any other name rather than 'Charles' (probably because there was no equivalent for his name in Russian). The only time I've heard anyone call him 'Carlos' was in my sophomore Spanish class, when we were discussing the British Royals (it was after Diana's passing). I think in that case, I knew whom the teacher was talking about, because there was a contextual clue. However, I can see where some confusion can take place.
There's actually a great Spanish candy bar called Carlos V, named after him; it'd be weird if they sold it as Karl I. BTW, the candy has him as "El Rey de los Chocolates". I guess that's another title for him :lol:
 
There's actually a great Spanish candy bar called Carlos V, named after him; it'd be weird if they sold it as Karl I. BTW, the candy has him as "El Rey de los Chocolates". I guess that's another title for him :lol:

That's priceless :D. Makes me wonder if HM enjoys chocolate.
 
I don't know about you, but I've been having a bit of a mini-controversy between my royalist friends and myself over whether to anglicize royal names. They had no idea who I was talking about when I brought up John Charles of Spain. I always anglicize, since it makes it easier to compare monarchs with different names in different countries, like HRE Charles V, who was also Karl, Carl and Carlos. Is it more appropriate to use their name as is, or can we anglicize it?
I'm against anglicizeing royal names, well I'm actually against translating names into any language. It's Juan Carlos not John Charles, Mikhail and not Michael, people should be IMO called what they were named whether they are royal or not as the name also the reference to their heritage and that should be absolutely kept.
 
Yes,but I've observed that Spanish media call prince William"Guillermo".while the French call princess Grace differently ,with the French equivalent word.
 
I am also against anglicizeing royal names, they were given their name for a specific reason. Like Princess Isabella of Denmark, I wouldn't change it to Princess Elizabeth or Juan Carlos or John Carlos.

I also dislike it when people spell names wrong, like spelling CP Frederik of Denmark with an extra C 'Frederick'. Or changing Wilhelm to William - two different names.
 
I think though it also depends a bit on the name and its general usage in the language e.g. Juan Carlos is always referred to as Juan Carlos but Nicholas II is never called anything else in the English speaking world so the normal usage is what should be used to aid communication - after all it is no use referring to someone by a name that people don't recognise.

Calling Juan Carlos John Charles for instance had me scratching my head as to whom was meant but if someone used a Russian name for Nicholas II I would again be scratching my head as every history I have ever read, and every documentary I have seen always call him Nicholas II (because they are only in English - sorry but I only speak one language and the two I have tried to learn - French and Italian were both just too hard for me - I admire anyone who can learn a foreign language as it is a skill I simply can't do - I can't even manage the swear words in Arabic/Vietnamese that I hear every day at work).
 
With anglisized names (or germanised) I get totaly confused .. there would be to many Karl II .... I very much prefer the names to be the *original* once .. than it is clear of which country one speaks and doesnt get confused to much ..

Think of the horror of all those french Louis to confuse with all the german "ludwigs" ... too bad that in wikipedia they take that for standart ....
 
With anglisized names (or germanised) I get totaly confused .. there would be to many Karl II .... I very much prefer the names to be the *original* once .. than it is clear of which country one speaks and doesnt get confused to much ..

Think of the horror of all those french Louis to confuse with all the german "ludwigs" ... too bad that in wikipedia they take that for standart ....


For me there is no problem because the books I use use Louis and Ludwig - they don't use the Russian names without Anglicising probably because they also have to transliterate the name from Cyrillic so may as well Anglicise the name while names with the same alphabet they use the name the same - of course I see William II a lot for the Kaiser as well as Wilhelm.
 
This may be a simplistic answer, but this is an English-speaking forum.
There are translation facilities all over the web.
 
Even if this is an English-speaking forum many of the members are from countries that are not English-speaking. It's true that in some of those countries royal names are transcribed to their equivalent in the native tongue, but not in all countries, for example that is not done in Sweden. If the names was to be anglicized here at least I would be very confused about whom the royals were and I would loose the interest for this forum.
 
So, would this mean that we can only refer to William as Guglielmo or Guillaume ?
 
So, would this mean that we can only refer to William as Guglielmo or Guillaume ?
No, I mean that the names the royals have in their own countries should be used, for example William, Duke of Cambridge, Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange and Guillaume, Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg and not use William for all three of them.
 
I've never heard of Charles being referred to by any other name rather than 'Charles' (probably because there was no equivalent for his name in Russian).
There is: Карл (Karl)
 
Yes,the name "Karl" is more known due to historical reasons,but there is no purely Russian equivalent for it,as "Karl" has German roots,while we have for example equivalents for names "John"(Ivan) or "Andrew"(Andrei)etc.
 
Yes,the name "Karl" is more known due to historical reasons,but there is no purely Russian equivalent for it,as "Karl" has German roots,while we have for example equivalents for names "John"(Ivan) or "Andrew"(Andrei)etc.
Nor for my Russian patronym / Olga Genrikhovna
 
No, I mean that the names the royals have in their own countries should be used, for example William, Duke of Cambridge, Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange and Guillaume, Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg and not use William for all three of them.

In any case, I just realized I'm breaking my own rule: I always call the dual monarchs of Castile and Aragon Ferdinand and Isabella, not Ferdinand and Elizabeth. Something about a Spanish queen named Elizabeth doesn't sound right to me. I imagine it would be harder for women, since they'd marry into a (possibly) foreign-speaking court where their name would have to be translated. The last Czarina of Russia is a perfect example; she was named after her mother (Alice of Great Britain) but was from Hesse, where there is no German word for Alice. So they spelled it like it sounds: Alix. When she married, they Christianized the name, as usual in Russian royal marriages, this time to Alexandra. So a woman born with one name now can go by three! Its too confusing... :bang:
 
This may be a simplistic answer, but this is an English-speaking forum.
There are translation facilities all over the web.

To be more precise: This is a forum where people communicate in English, it's not a forum for native English speakers.

I fail to see the problem.

If you are interested in a foreign royal family, surely you would wish to know their real names?
Most of us non-English speakers are actually pretty proud of our royal families, our language, culture and history. Why on earth should we anglicize names that are important to us, currently or historically?
Isn't it enough that the names of many of our cities are anglicized?

Using anglicized names because they are used in references is an argument that is only valid to the extent that the sources are in English, but the majority of sources regarding European, Asian and Middle Eastern royal families are not in English.

If you come to a foreign country and insist on using anglicized names then I can assure you that you'll very quickly end up being classified as the stereotypical ignorant English speaker who can't be bothered, let alone have the common curtesy, of learning the local versions of the names.

Try turn it around. It's like me insiting on calling the Prince of Wales, Karl instead of Charles. - I have a feeling a British member or two on this forum might object to that.
 
Last edited:
In any case, I just realized I'm breaking my own rule: I always call the dual monarchs of Castile and Aragon Ferdinand and Isabella, not Ferdinand and Elizabeth.
Shouldn't it be Fernando and Isabel in Spanish, Ferrando and Isabel in Aragonés and not Ferdinand and Isabella, as they are the Anglicized forms?
 
It the most aesthethical option. HM John Charles - Though I´m a Carlist - is more pretty in a English text than its Spanish counterpart.
 
I would never call Juan Carlos John Charles, IMO that is not his name nor what he goes by. He is Spanish and his name is Spanish. I have to admit that the mere suggestion of something like anglicizing their names is rather insulting and I'm an American.
I do admit that I refer to the Russian's as Peter, Catherine, Nicholas etc. but that is because that is how I have been taught to refer to them. I can't even think of their Russian names with the exception of Ekaterina; I honestly didn't know they didn't go by those names in their countries because all the books I read on them refer to them by their non-Russian names.
 
I don't know about you, but I've been having a bit of a mini-controversy between my royalist friends and myself over whether to anglicize royal names. They had no idea who I was talking about when I brought up John Charles of Spain. I always anglicize, since it makes it easier to compare monarchs with different names in different countries, like HRE Charles V, who was also Karl, Carl and Carlos. Is it more appropriate to use their name as is, or can we anglicize it?

I think it's a big sign of arrogance, ignorance and just plain lazyness to not use the name a person is been given by their parents. No matter if there is a version of the name in another language. It's just a VERSION and not a TRANSLATION. They origin from the same source but they are NOT the same. I don't care if it's "easier" to translate a name into the current countries version. It's still the wrong name.

I always hate, hate, hate it when I read spanish websites where they write about "Guillermo & Catalina", "Isabel II & Felipe", "Carlos Gustavo", "Carlos Felipe", "Magdalena", "Carlota", "Carolina", "Estefania", "Beatriz". Those are not their names. So why use them?

It's just like they are not "Wilhelm & Katharina", "Heinrich", "Johannes Karl", "Mechthild-Margarethe"(germanized) or "Charles Philip", "Madeline" (which btw is used here in the forum very often and just isn't right, just like FrederiCk isn't right, but Frederik), "John Charles" (anglicized).

Has anyone even recognized all of them? No? Have you recognized them, wanderer? If not you know how it would be for every non-english-speaking user around here if we suddenly start changing names around just so you would have it easier. ;) Because it's not easier. It's confusing. I bet it's even confusing for native english speaking people.

So long story short: No, names shouldn't be anglicized, germanized, spanish-cized or russia-cized (if the last two words even exist :lol:) or whatever-cized. Names CAN NEVER be translated or somewhat-cized in my opinion. That's just not right. :bang:
 
Last edited:
I always hate, hate, hate it when I read spanish websites where they write about "Guillermo & Catalina", "Isabel II & Felipe", "Carlos Gustavo", "Carlos Felipe", "Magdalena", "Carlota", "Carolina", "Estefania", "Beatriz". Those are not their names. So why use them?

Um...I'm not understanding this statement.
 
My husband was given his mother's surname as his first name. It's a Scot surname and rather unusual as a first name. We live in an area with a lot of French-speaking people; hence he sometimes gets called a French name which sounds similar but is nothing near it in meaning.
 
My unmarried surname means Son-of-the-servant-of-John. I'm glad that my ancestors were Gaelic: hence my maiden name has only two syllables rather than seven.;)

Most of us non-English speakers are actually pretty proud of our royal families, our language, culture and history. Why on earth should we anglicize names that are important to us, currently or historically?
 
So we should all install cyrillic keyboards to talk about Владимир I? I think not. Perhaps it's not "anglicizing" to use the Latinate alphabet but clearly, Cyrillic words are anglicized all the time to make them fit English pronunciation schemes.

If it's one's own family or language that one is typing about, then it's wonderful to use un mot trés precis, mais quand on parle en anglais, it's natural to use English spellings and pronunciations.

I have no expectations that people will pronounce (or spell) Hawai'ian names properly (that glottal stop gets left out - and in fact, most websites won't let me use the diacritic to spell my name properly...no me importa...)
 
pk: anglicised would mean using an english name rather than the native one. non-english character sets are transliterated into english on a regular basis. THAT is not an issue here. what is, is whether one should substitute an english equivalent for a non-english name.

also, this seems to be more a problem with european names
 
Back
Top Bottom