Baby Cambridge: Potential Names and Godparents

[4Pam]

Picture of baby on the other thread--he's well developed (not surprising) and going to be a big husky guy. Needs a husky name. You decide what husky name is. Robert, Richard, I think. Alfred would be historically perfect but Alfred doesn't sound husky today. Gabriel would be neat but perhaps too European? You know, the angel Gabriel, a big husky guy if there ever was one.

Picture?!! Where?!!

 

[Ish]

Picture?!! Where?!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eat-royals-family-members-visit-new-baby.html

 

[Broadway Duchess]

I'm not expecting many, if any, of the continental royals to be chosen as godparents for Baby Boy Cambridge, except for the Greek royals. I think we're going to see:

Crown Prince Pavlos
Pippa Middleton
Countess of Wessex
Hugh Van Cutsem
and possibly two others

I'd love to see Sophie get chosen, as I don't believe she has any godchildren and has allegedly been helpful to Catherine during her engagement and wedding.

 

[windsorgirl]

I'm just not that into Philip but agree that it is the likely choice. Some others mentioned that I DO like: David, Michael, Henry, Frederick, Edward. I don't see them using James as a first name, nor William.

As for godparents:
Prince Harry
Pippa Middleton
The Countess of Wessex
Peter Phillips (perhaps unlikely but I'm hoping!)
A Van Cutsem brother
??? close female but not Beatrice, Eugenie or Zara -- I don't know any of Kate's close friends, really.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Would it be appropriate to ask the Catherine's parents to be godparents?

 

[Broadway Duchess]

Would it be appropriate to ask the Catherine's parents to be godparents?

There have been cases where a grandparent was named as a godparent, so it isn't out of the question. I know George VI was a godfather of the Prince of Wales.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

There have been cases where a grandparent was named as a godparent, so it isn't out of the question. I know George VI was a godfather of the Prince of Wales.

Given that, I think it wouldn't be out of the question for the Middletons and at least Charles to be the baby's godparents. I can also see Harry being asked.

 

[cepe]

I'm going to forget history and think about these 2 and start from a blank piece of paper.

Andrew is a strong option, with their joint history
Michael because both of them are close to Catherine's father
Charles, for the same reasons
Peter, Catherine's grandfather
Philip, William's grandfather

I would like them to call the child Charles Michael Philip Peter. 2nd son will be called Andrew.

 

[Lee-Z]

Are there customs for this (godparents) in the Anglican Church?
In my culture (roman catholic, netherlands) it used to be quite custom for the godparents to be the grandparents for the first children (first child: father of father and mother of mother, second child: vice-versa) and for later children brothers and sisters etc. but I gather that's not custom in the Anglican Church?

 

[USCtrojan]

Has anyone thought of one of the Serbian princes getting the honor possibly?


The Serbian royals are close with the British Royal Family, so that is a possibility.

 

[cepe]

40 absolutely UNacceptable names from Vanity Fair.

40 Absolutely Unacceptable Names for Baby Boy Windsor… | Vanity Fair

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

I know this is a lousy prediction but the name Paul popped into my head he other day. If it was good enough for a czar, it's good enough for a king.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

My final guess (which was also my first):

George William Charles Henry

I also like Arthur Richard Henry George. It would be nice if Philip could feature; I can also see them using: George Philip Michael Arthur.

 

[lea]

Would they consider Victor? Could honor Queen Victoria with that name.

 

[Ish]

40 absolutely UNacceptable names from Vanity Fair.

40 Absolutely Unacceptable Names for Baby Boy Windsor… | Vanity Fair

I vote for Prince Miss Thing, followed closely by Prince Dumbledore.

 

[Molly2101]

I am still going with Alexander or Arthur, but I am leaning more toward Alexander as it's a bit more "modern". I wish Viscount Severn had been Alexander (I know it's one of his middle names but meh), so I can hope this little Prince is Alexander. The bookies have said James, and if they do name him James I would be a bit annoyed if I was Edward and Sophie. Of course it's just a name, and they can name him whatever they want. It would, however, be annoying to have boys of a similar age with the same name running around Sandringham in the future.

 

[Ish]

I am still going with Alexander or Arthur, but I am leaning more toward Alexander as it's a bit more "modern". I wish Viscount Severn had been Alexander (I know it's one of his middle names but meh), so I can hope this little Prince is Alexander. The bookies have said James, and if they do name him James I would be a bit annoyed if I was Edward and Sophie. Of course it's just a name, and they can name him whatever they want. It would, however, be annoying to have boys of a similar age with the same name running around Sandringham in the future.

I don't think the bookies realize that Viscount Severn is named James. At least that's what I hope is behind the support for that name.

 

[Argie]

I'll stick to my guns and go for:
Michael George for the first two, but now I'm thinking Alexander (after the Queen) and Henry, after his most-likely godfather, prince Harry. So Michael George Henry Alexander. A big name for such a tiny person.

 

[HRHHermione]

I don't think the bookies realize that Viscount Severn is named James. At least that's what I hope is behind the support for that name.

I personally don't think it matters. They're only second cousins. There are people in my family that have the same name who are close in age but who are second or third cousins.

I think James is still an option.

 

[Isabella]

I personally don't think it matters. They're only second cousins. There are people in my family that have the same name who are close in age but who are second or third cousins.

I think James is still an option.

I agree. I don't think a name would be disqualified just because it's in use in the extended family (especially by someone who most people aren't aware of).

 

[Countessmeout]

But your family is not famous, known around the world.

Like Charles, I think William will wish to stay away from names in use, or at least by similar age groups. A name for an older relative like Philip or Richard is different IMO.

 

[amaryllus]

Why have two children so close in age and who will see each other regularly bare same name? Also, baby C will always have the lime light -be the special baby and the known one and James Viscount Severn will fade into wealthy obscurity. At least let the boy have his own name.

 

[Molly2101]

Why have two children so close in age and who will see each other regularly bare same name? Also, baby C will always have the lime light -be the special baby and the known one and James Viscount Severn will fade into wealthy obscurity. At least let the boy have his own name.

Exactly. Why have two boys who are so close in age and will likely be together for family gatherings with the same name? Not only will it be confusing, but it is a bit odd.

Viscount Severn is very unknown, but that doesn't mean they can still use the name James. There are two Prince Edward's, but the Duke of Kent is over 30 years older than the Queen's son Edward. It's not the same, whereas James is 5 1/2 years older. They may be close to each other, just the older 6 cousins are with each other.

 

[USCtrojan]

40 absolutely UNacceptable names from Vanity Fair.

40 Absolutely Unacceptable Names for Baby Boy Windsor… | Vanity Fair

Didn't find this funny at all! Someone obviously had way too much time on their hands!

 

[4Pam]

I like Phillip Charles Michael George that someone brought up earlier. I also like Alexander Phillip Michael Charles.

 

[Isabella]

Exactly. Why have two boys who are so close in age and will likely be together for family gatherings with the same name? Not only will it be confusing, but it is a bit odd.

Viscount Severn is very unknown, but that doesn't mean they can still use the name James. There are two Prince Edward's, but the Duke of Kent is over 30 years older than the Queen's son Edward. It's not the same, whereas James is 5 1/2 years older. They may be close to each other, just the older 6 cousins are with each other.

It might be confusing on some family occasions, but I personally still don't see that as being odd or a reason to rule it out. I mean, in my extended family we have some people of the same name - it really doesn't cause any problems, other than maybe having to specify which person we're passing the turkey to on Thanksgiving. Also, children are frequently among other children with the same name, at school and such. It generally shouldn't present any major difficulties.

 

[casualfan]

40 absolutely UNacceptable names from Vanity Fair.

40 Absolutely Unacceptable Names for Baby Boy Windsor… | Vanity Fair

Just hilarious! I agree, Kim Philby is absolutely unacceptable.

 

[Ish]

I wouldn't say it's odd, but I don't think the Mountbatten-Windsors are much for using names that are currently in use, especially when it's of people close in age. There's the two Edwards, but they almost 30 years between them, with another 30+ years between the Duke of Kent and the late Duke of Windsor.

If they went with James then Baby C will share his first name with two living relatives - James Middleton and Viscount Severn - one of whom is really close in age to him.

 

[nascarlucy]

David sounds like a good name or they could name him William. Don't really like the name George (sounds old-fashioned).

 

[PrincessKaimi]

There's a name in my family that has been in use for 5 generations, and now, three cousins (not first cousins - but the Viscount James is not the new baby's first cousin either) have that name. They use different nicknames. In another family I know, two of the great grand children have great grandpa's name - doesn't seem to concern or bother anyone.

I've always been fascinating by the tradition (in the past) of British Royals using the same set of names for their legitimate and illegitimate children - not even cousins. I think there must have been some sense of magic or honor in the names.

That being said, King James was a controversial king - I hope they think over that part of it. (cf. Collins Encyclopedia of Scotland, Keay and Keay article).