Baby Cambridge: Potential Names and Godparents

[Mariel]

They call Catherine's sister Pippa, for Phillipa, could they call a son Pip for Phillip? I don't think that would work well. Although there is a notable character in Great Expectations, by Dickens, Pip. My English family lived in the hamlet of Cooling, the setting for Great Expectations, five miles from Rochester, where Dickens lived.

 

[Ish]

They call Catherine's sister Pippa, for Phillipa, could they call a son Pip for Phillip? I don't think that would work well. Although there is a notable character in Great Expectations, by Dickens, Pip. My English family lived in the hamlet of Cooling, the setting for Great Expectations, five miles from Rochester, where Dickens lived.

Pip is a nickname for Philip, so it's possible.

 

[Countessmeout]

Modern = not Biblical or otherwise historical .... at least, that's how I've always defined it. For example, Alison, Derek, Melissa, Karen, Linda, and Cheryl are all rather modern names, but I can't see a Queen Linda or a King Derek, can you? You could also throw in Caitlin, Brianna, Cody, Aislyn, Brady, Sierra, and Ashton in there as well. Those are all the names of students in my sister's 7th grade Language Arts class.

I'd consider modern to be any name that didn't appear with regularity before 1950.

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.

 

[cepe]

But none of these are serious contenders for a future Sovereign of GB, NI and 15 realms. Its fun to speculate but these will never happen. Even Queen Alice doesn't seem right.

I'm still on Charlotte Rose

 

[Lady Kathleen]

That's what I'm thinking..I'm not sure which names are considered modern in the UK. But Philip and Louise and Henry isn't modern here in the US. That doesn't mean there aren't young people with those names but I'm generally speaking.

Actually, Henry is becoming a common name for young boys in the United States. It is currently #52 in popularity. Philip has been gradually falling since the 1990s, but it is still in use and there are plenty of young men named Philip. You are right about Louise, though.

Old names are making a comeback in the US. Everything old is new again. Its the circle of life.

Exactly.

 

[blauerengel]

That's what I'm thinking..I'm not sure which names are considered modern in the UK. But Philip and Louise and Henry isn't modern here in the US. That doesn't mean there aren't young people with those names but I'm generally speaking.

Really? Every Philip I know is old.

It is funny because I know 4 Philips personally-my brother,my music instructor & two friends They are all below 30...
I don´t think it is an old-fashioned name but maybe in some reagons it is less popular than others.Names also have certain trends-there was a time when everyone wanted to name their kids after ancient Celtic names or Roman/Grecque deities (Diana!),than I have noticed a huge enthusiasm for everything French (came with Jacqueline Kennedy and the nouvelle vague I think),when I was young every mother was crazy about US-names like Tiffany,Britney or Kevin for a boy...
Now I think the trend goes into finding absolutely exceptional names like Savannah,Apple,Brooklyn and other names of celebrity babys suggest(Maybe they have a secret competoition for who wins gold in chosing the most ridiculous,strange,unusual name on the planet that we don´t know about...).
Holly Madison named her girl "Rainbow Aurora" which she got heavily critisised for.To me Rainbow is still one of the more conventional names an quite charming-but when I read about "Ivy Blue" (how did Beyoncé invent Blue Ivy?! AFAIK ivy is dark green,so she must be Green Ivy?!? But if it encourages the girl to study at one of the ivy-league universities I shall be happy with that name!)
Thinking about royalty-Estelle is quite unusual and very little in use in royal circles.First I didn´t like it that much but I came to appreciate it more with time.I like that little girl a lot,so her name would not make any difference-but I am sure that the Cambridges go traditional for the first child!

 

[DukeOfAster]

Queen Elizabeth was named after her Mother. Why not name the baby after her Mother. I think Catherine Elizabeth Diana Carole would sound good. It cover mom, both grandmothers and great grandmother.

so many talk about the name being traditional enough. I think Catherine is a regal name for a Queen and is perfect. The names will not be like they are honoring just Diana they are honoring Great Grandmother, Grandmothers, and of course Mother.Please note that Catherine middle name is Elizabeth.

For a boy I like the same concept like this William Phillip Charles Michael. ps lets honor Great Grandfather and let him be King Phillip.

 

[Isabella]

That's what I'm thinking..I'm not sure which names are considered modern in the UK. But Philip and Louise and Henry isn't modern here in the US. That doesn't mean there aren't young people with those names but I'm generally speaking.

Really? Every Philip I know is old.

Yes, I'm in my 20s and know several Philips around my age. Among potential male royal baby names, it's among those that strikes me as the least "old"-sounding (not that I think that should be the basis of their choice, of course).

I find it interesting when certain names or more popular, or remain more popular, in the UK vs. in the US. Completely unrelated to this thread and the royal baby, I had just been telling someone the other day how I noticed more "young" (i.e., not grannies) people named Louise in the UK. Upon looking it up, I see that Louise was in the top 100 UK baby names between 1954 and 2005, but its last peak in popularity in the US was in 1950, when it ranked #109. Not that I think that William and Kate are taking such things into account (and I don't think William and Kate will be using that name anyway), but I think it's good as a general of example of differing perceptions.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

But none of these are serious contenders for a future Sovereign of GB, NI and 15 realms. Its fun to speculate but these will never happen. Even Queen Alice doesn't seem right.

I'm still on Charlotte Rose

If you were living in 1825, the continental bourgeois name of Victoria would not seem right, either. You'd get used to Queen Alice.

But I agree, Melissa and company are not serious contenders.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Doesn't the Archbishop of Canterbury use water from the River Jordan for royal baptisms too? Seems I've read that somewhere.

Indeed he does, apparently anyway the water story has never been officially confirmed. Dates back to Richard I and links to christ's immersion in the River Jordan.

 

[LadyCatharine]

Princess Anne ?
I love the Name for the future Sovereign , Anne,howere Her Majesty's daughter Anne, I'm counting that one out.
Still,going for Elizabeth or Victoria

 

[cepe]

Princess Anne ?
I love the Name for the future Sovereign , Anne,howere Her Majesty's daughter Anne, I'm counting that one out.
Still,going for Elizabeth or Victoria

think Anne would be really pleased. She is he Princess Royal - a Princess Anne would be ok by her. It would also be popular, I think, with the public.

The effect it would have on computer data bases would be interesting to watch!

 

[blauerengel]

Yes, I'm in my 20s and know several Philips around my age. Among potential male royal baby names, it's among those that strikes me as the least "old"-sounding (not that I think that should be the basis of their choice, of course).

I find it interesting when certain names or more popular, or remain more popular, in the UK vs. in the US. Completely unrelated to this thread and the royal baby, I had just been telling someone the other day how I noticed more "young" (i.e., not grannies) people named Louise in the UK. Upon looking it up, I see that Louise was in the top 100 UK baby names between 1954 and 2005, but its last peak in popularity in the US was in 1950, when it ranked #109. Not that I think that William and Kate are taking such things into account (and I don't think William and Kate will be using that name anyway), but I think it's good as a general of example of differing perceptions.

It is very interesting indeed,to watch how certain names gain and lose in popularity! With some names it is extreme-e.g. in Germany/Austria before 2.WW a lot of boys were named after old Germanic persons like "Siegfried" or "Hermann" ,now you don´t see that names anymore in germanspeaking countries (in Spain "Hermano" is still used).
Just as well as Emma (used to be popular like Lisa nowadays),Irmgard or Immaculata are names that I see less used on young people in my country.Adolf is also not used for certain reasons I also don´t see many Wilhelm´s in Germany/Austria any more-it was the name of the last Emperor of G. and IMO quite a nice boy name.

 

[Mirabel]

I really think names are cyclical; they are unpopular, and then come around again.
My grandmother and her sisters had names that are in trend right now: Matilda, Lillian, Julia, Anne.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I really think names are cyclical; they are unpopular, and then come around again.
My grandmother and her sisters had names that are in trend right now: Matilda, Lillian, Julia, Anne.

How about Julia Caroline Diana Elizabeth?

 

[Zonk]

Please note that all posts regarding a potential Cambridge baptism have been moved to http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f269/cambridge-baby-musings-and-suggestions-34427-33.html.

Thank you!

Zonk
British Forums Moderator

 

[Countessmeout]

I dont see how Julia is any more likely than Melissa. Melissa was defended, not as a possible royal name, but against people saying it is a 'new' name.

There is a difference between old fashioned/traditional name and royal names. There are names with a serious link to certain royal familie. Lilian would be a likely name in Sweden, due to the beloved Princess Lilian who recently died. Juliana would be likely some where like the Netherlands, where they had a queen by that name.

Of those four, the only ones with a royal connection in Englad would be Mathilda and Anne. I like Anne, and could see it as a middle name, but I am not sure about a first.

how about

Victoria Mary Elizabeth Anne- for the queen reignants of England before her

David Andrew George Patrick- for the four patron saints of the UK

Margrat Augusta Diana Elizabeth-Strathearn, Cambridge, Wales, queen

George Robert Charles Philip- Cambridge, Strathearn, Wales and grandfather

 

[wymanda]

David Andrew George Patrick- for the four patron saints of the UK

The Duke of Windsor was Edward Albert George Andrew Patrick David

 

[Lumutqueen]

The Duke of Windsor was Edward Albert George Andrew Patrick David

He was named for the four patron saints.

 

[Mariel]

There is a George in the Royal Family now, the heir to the Duke of Kent. He lives a quiet life, not actively in service to the family, retired from diplomatic service, supporting his children and his wife, who is a history teacher at Cambridge, I believe. He married a Catholic so he can't be in the succession, nor can his first two children who became Catholics, but his last child (I read) has not become a Catholic yet (Amelia, I think). So I guess the name George for the Prince would be non-conflicting with this George. However, I think there have been way too many George's. There are many other traditional choices and any of them better than this. We have gone over them many times. People speak of Diana as a name with too much weight; I think George has even more weight for a Prince. Stories of the tragic lives of the first King Georges would dominate the press. Even David does not carry as much baggage, although the life of Edward VIII would be rehashed.

 

[Mirabel]

I don't know: traditional monarch names for a boy are all taken!

William, Henry, Charles, Edward...all Senior royals.
Richard- well, the press would have a field day with that nickname.
George- I agree there have been too many Georges.
James- Edward took it for his own son!
John- considered unlucky.
Stephen- My personal favorite but hasn't been used for ages.

Hard to see how William and Kate can really use a traditional name here!
Oh why did the Queen let Edward use James?? Someone should have anticipated this!

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Oh why did the Queen let Edward use James?? Someone should have anticipated this!

Even if she hadn't "let Edward use James", Catherine's brother would still have been named James. Also, I really don't see what should stop them from using a name that's already in use if they really like that name.

 

[Mirabel]

I suppose that's true.
And the baby would be Prince James, so that would distinguish him from any others.

 

[CrownPrincess5]

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.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Don't forget there's another James to consider in this family dynamic.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

The last King James was deposed in the Glorious Revolution. I don't think it's a very auspicious name for a future Monarch. The British Royal Family stops to use the names of ill-fated Monarchs to name future Monarchs. We don't see a Richard, a John, a Charles or a James for ages.

I don't think they'll use name the baby James. George is certainly one of the safest options. Okay, the first four George weren't the best Kings ever, but the last two were brilliant. And I still thinking that the Prince of Wales will reign as King George VII.

 

[Ish]

The last King James was deposed in the Glorious Revolution. I don't think it's a very auspicious name for a future Monarch. The British Royal Family stops to use the names of ill-fated Monarchs to name future Monarchs. We don't see a Richard, a John, a Charles or a James for ages.

I don't think they'll use name the baby James. George is certainly one of the safest options. Okay, the first four George weren't the best Kings ever, but the last two were brilliant. And I still thinking that the Prince of Wales will reign as King George VII.

The first King Charles was executed. The last King Edward abdicated. The only Queen Anne died without issue. And yet the Queen thought that all were appropriate names to give her children. The one child of hers who doesn't have the name of a former British monarch is Andrew, who was named for Philip's father - a man who was partially blamed for the loss of Greek territory in the Greco-Turkish War, was exiled from his home country twice, and was estranged from his wife.

The Queen didn't see fit to not give her children names of individuals who had less than desirable histories, so I can't see William being forced to avoid names that are similarly associated (except for John, but that's a special case).

Oh, also, Charles gave both his sons the name of questionable monarchs - William being associated with two monarchs who were unable to secure the future of their lines, one of whom is a hugely contested figure in Northern Ireland, while Henry is best associated with a man who is known for sleeping his way through both a kingdom and a religion, and that's just taking into consideration the most recent holder of the name (there were also 3 Henrys who were usurpers, which makes it an interesting name to give the younger son, and another who was usurped not once but twice).

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

The first King Charles was executed. The last King Edward abdicated. The only Queen Anne died without issue. And yet the Queen thought that all were appropriate names to give her children. The one child of hers who doesn't have the name of a former British monarch is Andrew, who was named for Philip's father - a man who was partially blamed for the loss of Greek territory in the Greco-Turkish War, was exiled from his home country twice, and was estranged from his wife.

The Queen didn't see fit to not give her children names of individuals who had less than desirable histories, so I can't see William being forced to avoid names that are similarly associated (except for John, but that's a special case).

Oh, also, Charles gave both his sons the name of questionable monarchs - William being associated with two monarchs who were unable to secure the future of their lines, one of whom is a hugely contested figure in Northern Ireland, while Henry is best associated with a man who is known for sleeping his way through both a kingdom and a religion, and that's just taking into consideration the most recent holder of the name (there were also 3 Henrys who were usurpers, which makes it an interesting name to give the younger son, and another who was usurped not once but twice).

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.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

In most families, people don't use a name that's just been taken by another family member, but there's certainly nothing wrong with using a name like James just because there's another little James.

As for not using the names of unfortunate monarchs of the past, I think in the 21st Century such superstitions are over, and most royal parents give a name that sounds pleasing to their ears rather than out of some duty to name a child this or that.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Admittedly - this only looks at William's side of the family and boy names, it's a sample biased by who I counted, who did not have children, etc. But of the current royal group (which includes the current HRH and their issue) and several past rulers, I came up with the following name count. A full accounting of names follows the count.

George 11
Albert 6
Edward 6
Philip 5
Alexander 4
Charles 4
Frederick 4
Richard 4
Arthur 3
David 3
Louis 3
Andrew 2
Christian 2
Edmund 2
Henry 2
Michael 2
Nicholas 2
Patrick3
Walter 1
William 2
Anders 1
Antony 1
Ernest 1
Franklin 1
Gregers 1
James 1
Maximilian 1
Paul 1
Theo 1
Xan 1


And here are all names for those I counted. Pardon the familiar rather than correct names - I was in a curious, if rushed state of mind.
Prince Harry: Henry Charles Albert David
Prince William: William Arthur Philip Louis
Prince Charles: Charles Philip Arthur George
Prince Phillip: Phillip
Prince Andrew: Andrew Albert Christian Edward
Prince Edward: Edward Antony Richard Louis
Viscount Severn: James Alexander Philip Theo
Duke of Gloucester: Richard Alexander Walter George
Earl of Ulster: [FONT=&quot]Alexander Patrick Gregers Richard[/FONT]
Lord Culloden: Xan Richard Anders
Duke of Kent: Edward George Nicholas Paul Patrick
Earl of St. Andrews: George Philip Nicholas
Lord Downpatrick: Edward Edmund Maximilian George
Prince Michael of Kent: Michael George Charles Franklin
Lord Frederick Windsor: Frederick Michael George David Louis
Prince George, Duke of Kent: George Edward Alexander Edmund
Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester: Henry William Frederick Albert
George VI: Albert Frederick Arthur George
Edward VII: Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David
George V: George Frederick Ernest Albert