Names of the Belgian Royals

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by Prinsara

Which is why it would have seemed more likely for Albert to use it. Aside from the name having some weight in Belgian history, Albert was very much affected by his brother's death (and having the throne fall on him) for the rest of his life.

Which is I'm sure why Leopold and Astrid used it; I just don't know why Albert himself didn't. Perhaps Leopold "had" to be Leopold and Elisabeth very much wanted to honor her father? Or perhaps I'm just stuck on the British parallel of George V.

The name has really little weight in Belgian history. If you are speaking of the Baldwins of Flanders, they aren't direct descendants of them. And there are Charles and Philips and one Leopold among the ancestral Flanders as well.

Its not unusual a king would choose a name with royal precedence for his heir. Why we have monarchies with names past X in use because its pretty customary to choose a former reigning monarch's name for your heir. Leopold carried that tradition on. If he had chosen to name his son Philippe for his father there would have been some precedence as well as Leopold I's second son was named Philippe.


Perhaps he wasn't as close to his brother as you think. Or he was more effected by the loss of his brother. He didn't even use Baudouin as a middle name for either of his sons.


Leopold using Baudouin for his heir would have been like Elizabeth II using Andrew for her eldest son. Yes, a family name, but not one you'd expect for the future king. Albert and Baudouin's names being reversed would have been far more expected. Naming their heir for one of the former kings, and then giving their second son the name of an Uncle.

[Curryong]

Perhaps Albert felt guilt all his life that his brother who was heir was dead and instead he inherited the Throne. It may be that those feelings were known privately within the family and so Leopold and Astrid decided to make a complete change when Baudouin was born and use a non-traditional name for the heir and at the same time pay a tribute to Leopold's father Albert and his brother. After all, the Belgian Crown was not that ancient. Perhaps the family decided not to imitate other Royal Houses and use the same forenames again and again.

[Gawin]

Baudouin was the name of several medieval counts of Flanders as well as Hainaut, so it does carry weight in Belgian history. And BTW, the Coburgs are descendants of both dynasties, as are all of Europe's royal families.

The first Prince Baudouin was born in 1869, a short 38 years after the German Coburgs gained the Belgian throne. By choosing a name from Belgian history, his parents allied the new, foreign dynasty with the older, native dynasties.

The Nassaus of Luxembourg (German imports just like the Coburgs) did likewise when Grand Duchess Charlotte chose the name Jean for her son and heir (rather than Adolphe or Guillaume) and again when Jean named his oldest son Henri. Both names were taken from the medieval Counts/Dukes of Luxembourg. Yes, the Nassaus descend from the earlier dynasty (as do all European royal families) but they did not owe their throne to it.

I don't agree that selecting Baudouin for a Belgian heir is analogous to naming a British heir Andrew. Baudouin is a name steeped in medieval Belgian royal history. The Coburgs simply resurrected it. But Andrew has no royal antecedents in Britain. Alfred, Edgar, Edwin, Ethelred, Constantine, Kenneth, or Malcolm would be better examples (all names of medieval British monarchs).

Because Belgium only became a kingdom in 1830, limiting themselves to the name of a former king for their oldest son meant Leopold III and Astrid had only two choices: Leopold or Albert. They may have selected Baudouin because (1) it was suitably royal (2) in the years following World War I, a name from Belgium's medieval past may have been preferable over Leopold and Albert (both German), (3) it honored Flanders, which was often at odds with the rest of Belgium, and (4) they liked it.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by Gawin

Baudouin was the name of several medieval counts of Flanders as well as Hainaut, so it does carry weight in Belgian history. And BTW, the Coburgs are descendants of both dynasties, as are all of Europe's royal families.

The first Prince Baudouin was born in 1869, a short 38 years after the German Coburgs gained the Belgian throne. By choosing a name from Belgian history, his parents allied the new, foreign dynasty with the older, native dynasties.

The Nassaus of Luxembourg (German imports just like the Coburgs) did likewise when Grand Duchess Charlotte chose the name Jean for her son and heir (rather than Adolphe or Guillaume) and again when Jean named his oldest son Henri. Both names were taken from the medieval Counts/Dukes of Luxembourg. Yes, the Nassaus descend from the earlier dynasty (as do all European royal families) but they did not owe their throne to it.

I don't agree that selecting Baudouin for a Belgian heir is analogous to naming a British heir Andrew. Baudouin is a name steeped in medieval Belgian royal history. The Coburgs simply resurrected it. But Andrew has no royal antecedents in Britain. Alfred, Edgar, Edwin, Ethelred, Constantine, Kenneth, or Malcolm would be better examples (all names of medieval British monarchs).

Because Belgium only became a kingdom in 1830, limiting themselves to the name of a former king for their oldest son meant Leopold III and Astrid had only two choices: Leopold or Albert. They may have selected Baudouin because (1) it was suitably royal (2) in the years following World War I, a name from Belgium's medieval past may have been preferable over Leopold and Albert (both German), (3) it honored Flanders, which was often at odds with the rest of Belgium, and (4) they liked it.

Since they used Albert for their second son, they weren't too opposed to a German connection clearly. German being one of the official languages of Belgium it seems a moot point to say its a German name.

They could have used Philippe, in honor of Albert's father. Properly French, properly historic, properly not German if they chose to ignore that side of their country. There were also numerous counts of Flanders by that name.

If they wanted to go Flanders roots there is everything from Charles (there were five). Louis (there were two, and the eldest son of Leopold I was Louis). Joseph. Francis. Baldwin was certainly not the only one to honor if they wanted to pick a Flanders name.


My point with Andrew is that it was picking a 'family name' instead of a regal name. The Kings of Belgium had never been a Baudouin. And there had not been a Count of Flanders with the name since 1205. And since that Baldwin had no sons, at least in the male line they most certainly aren't descended from that Count of Flanders. Okay want one that is a historical royal name. It would have been like naming Charles Thomas. There is a historical precedence of an English prince named Thomas (Edward I, Edward III, Henry IV all had sons Thomas), but certainly not the heir to the throne. King Thomas of GB? Royal families in the past have stuck to very traditional names for their heirs, why we have so many high count names.


The original question was why Albert didn't name either Leopold or Charles for his brother. The German question wasn't an issue back then.

[LauraS3514]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

Leopold using Baudouin for his heir would have been like Elizabeth II using Andrew for her eldest son. Yes, a family name, but not one you'd expect for the future king.

Although I agree that The Duke of York was named after his paternal grandfather, Andrew is also the name of the Patron Saint of Scotland.

[An Ard Ri]

I don't think Belgium will ever see a period of such deep mourning for a member of the RF as was seen following the death of king Baudouin.

[maria-olivia]

I have to say that King Albert's eldest Brother was supposed to be King Baudouin but he passed away from ilness at 21 years.
When the Duc and Duchess de Brabant had their first Son in 1930 , King Albert I asked them to call him Baudouin to remember his beloved Brother.

[maria-olivia]

Concerning the Bugatti , it was sold in 1967.
When it was sold again Princess Lilian wanted to buy it but another person did
So the 10 miillons euros will not go to the Royal Family but to the present owner 's family.
The price is unexpected , but when it belonged once to a Royal , it is a Honor ...

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Gawin

Baudouin was the name of several medieval counts of Flanders as well as Hainaut, so it does carry weight in Belgian history. And BTW, the Coburgs are descendants of both dynasties, as are all of Europe's royal families.

The first Prince Baudouin was born in 1869, a short 38 years after the German Coburgs gained the Belgian throne. By choosing a name from Belgian history, his parents allied the new, foreign dynasty with the older, native dynasties.

The Nassaus of Luxembourg (German imports just like the Coburgs) did likewise when Grand Duchess Charlotte chose the name Jean for her son and heir (rather than Adolphe or Guillaume) and again when Jean named his oldest son Henri. Both names were taken from the medieval Counts/Dukes of Luxembourg. Yes, the Nassaus descend from the earlier dynasty (as do all European royal families) but they did not owe their throne to it.

I don't agree that selecting Baudouin for a Belgian heir is analogous to naming a British heir Andrew. Baudouin is a name steeped in medieval Belgian royal history. The Coburgs simply resurrected it. But Andrew has no royal antecedents in Britain. Alfred, Edgar, Edwin, Ethelred, Constantine, Kenneth, or Malcolm would be better examples (all names of medieval British monarchs).

Because Belgium only became a kingdom in 1830, limiting themselves to the name of a former king for their oldest son meant Leopold III and Astrid had only two choices: Leopold or Albert. They may have selected Baudouin because (1) it was suitably royal (2) in the years following World War I, a name from Belgium's medieval past may have been preferable over Leopold and Albert (both German), (3) it honored Flanders, which was often at odds with the rest of Belgium, and (4) they liked it.

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

Since they used Albert for their second son, they weren't too opposed to a German connection clearly. German being one of the official languages of Belgium it seems a moot point to say its a German name.

They could have used Philippe, in honor of Albert's father. Properly French, properly historic, properly not German if they chose to ignore that side of their country. There were also numerous counts of Flanders by that name.

If they wanted to go Flanders roots there is everything from Charles (there were five). Louis (there were two, and the eldest son of Leopold I was Louis). Joseph. Francis. Baldwin was certainly not the only one to honor if they wanted to pick a Flanders name.


My point with Andrew is that it was picking a 'family name' instead of a regal name. The Kings of Belgium had never been a Baudouin. And there had not been a Count of Flanders with the name since 1205. And since that Baldwin had no sons, at least in the male line they most certainly aren't descended from that Count of Flanders. Okay want one that is a historical royal name. It would have been like naming Charles Thomas. There is a historical precedence of an English prince named Thomas (Edward I, Edward III, Henry IV all had sons Thomas), but certainly not the heir to the throne. King Thomas of GB? Royal families in the past have stuck to very traditional names for their heirs, why we have so many high count names.


The original question was why Albert didn't name either Leopold or Charles for his brother. The German question wasn't an issue back then.

Gawin's point wasn't that there were no other equally historic and traditional options, but that the name Baudouin/Boudewijn was a regal name and did carry serious weight in Belgian royal history, having been the name of numerous monarchs of the medieval county of Flanders, whose historical territory is comprised in the Kingdom of Belgium.

As Gawin points out, the Coburgs are far from alone in naming their kings and princes after monarchs from dynasties that historically reigned over their territories, even when the new dynasty neither owed their throne to those older dynasties nor was descended in from them in male line. He raised the examples of Jean and Henri of Luxembourg, who were named not for grand dukes of Luxembourg from the House of Nassau but for ruling counts of Luxembourg from its medieval reigning dynasty, which was not related to the Nassaus in the male line.

Another recent example of this: Kings Haakon VII, Olav V, and Harald V of Norway were named after medieval kings of Norway, even though the House of Glücksburg does not owe their throne to those kings and is not descended from them in the male line.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

Since they used Albert for their second son, they weren't too opposed to a German connection clearly. German being one of the official languages of Belgium it seems a moot point to say its a German name.

But Albert was a second son and not expected to become king.

They could have used Philippe, in honor of Albert's father. Properly French, properly historic, properly not German if they chose to ignore that side of their country. There were also numerous counts of Flanders by that name.

Yes, Philip was properly French, but not as identifiably Belgian as Baudouin. Nine counts of Flanders were named Baldwin. Three were named Philip, six if you count the Habsburgs who ruled what is now Belgium from afar as foreign rulers and for the most part never set foot in it and never thought of themselves as Belgian.

If they wanted to go Flanders roots there is everything from Charles (there were five). Louis (there were two, and the eldest son of Leopold I was Louis). Joseph. Francis. Baldwin was certainly not the only one to honor if they wanted to pick a Flanders name.

But Baudouin was the name they chose. It certainly had more historical importance to the Belgians than the others, especially Joseph or Francis (Habsburg names).

My point with Andrew is that it was picking a 'family name' instead of a regal name. The Kings of Belgium had never been a Baudouin. And there had not been a Count of Flanders with the name since 1205. And since that Baldwin had no sons, at least in the male line they most certainly aren't descended from that Count of Flanders.

All European royal families descend from the last Baldwin's daughter Margaret who became Countess of Flanders and Hainaut.

Okay want one that is a historical royal name. It would have been like naming Charles Thomas. There is a historical precedence of an English prince named Thomas (Edward I, Edward III, Henry IV all had sons Thomas), but certainly not the heir to the throne. King Thomas of GB? Royal families in the past have stuck to very traditional names for their heirs, why we have so many high count names.

No, it would NOT be like naming Charles Thomas. You are ignoring very important differences between Belgian and British royal history. Thomas (and Andrew) were never the names of a sovereign ruler of any territory that later became part of the UK. The name of a king of Mercia, Wessex, the Picts, Strathclyde, etc. would all be better examples.

But Baudouin was the name of several counts of Flanders and Hainaut, once-sovereign territories that later became part of the kingdom of Belgium. It was not simply a "family" name. Before it became a kingdom in 1830, Belgium was made up of various independent provinces including Flanders and Hainaut. The counts and dukes who ruled over these provinces were sovereign, independent rulers, whose territories ultimately fell by inheritance to the Habsburgs. The Coburgs chose to honor this independent past (and link themselves to it) when they selected the name Baudouin. It specifically honored Flanders, which had a fractious relationship with the rest of Belgium, and harbored a strong secessionist sentiment.

Belgium did not become an independent kingdom until 1830. Therefore there were only two REGAL names to choose from: Leopold or Albert.

The original question was why Albert didn't name either Leopold or Charles for his brother. The German question wasn't an issue back then.

Yes, but those aren't the statements I was addressing.

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Gawin

Yes, but those aren't the statements I was addressing.

That was the question I asked, though, to see if anyone had a more concrete answer than I did.

Rightly or wrongly, Albert openly said, thought, and believed his brother Baudouin would have made a better king for most of (if not his entire) life. Perhaps he was too haunted to give the name to his sons, but was obviously quite happy to approve it and see it again in his future-king grandson. If he indeed asked Leopold and Astrid for the name, perhaps it shows some difference between younger and older Albert.

[maria-olivia]

Royal Traditional names noo but affection names,
Normally we should have had Leopold III, Son of King Leopold II , but he passed away when he was 10 years old.
Albert II , because he was born some months after his grand father King Albert I passed away.
Leopold I first born Son did not have Leopold as name.

[Somebody]

If Elisabeth's firstborn would be a son, I wouldn't be surprised if we see another Boudewijn/Baudouin.

If her firstborn would be a daughter, it would be a little harder to predict. Charlotte would probably be one of the safer bets? But given that the future grand duke is already a Charles, I hope she'll pick something else. Clementine would both be a traditional name, one with some history within the family (both in male and female form - most famous: princess Clementine); and one of Mathilde's great-grandfathers was Clément, ridder van Outryve d'Ydewalle, so that part of her family would also be recognized.

[Alison H]

Some people do like the historical links - I'm not sure why they'd have been particularly into Baldwin of Flanders, Emperor of Constantinople, et al, but maybe they were, like Henry VII calling his eldest son Arthur, and Nicholas and Alexandra calling their son Alexei rather than Nicholas or Alexander.

I think you're right - Leopold III had to be Leopold, the second son got named after his Bavarian grandfather, and then they didn't have any more sons.

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by maria-olivia

Royal Traditional names noo but affection names,
Normally we should have had Leopold III, Son of King Leopold II , but he passed away when he was 10 years old.
Albert II , because he was born some months after his grand father King Albert I passed away.
Leopold I first born Son did not have Leopold as name.

Originally Posted by Alison H

I think you're right - Leopold III had to be Leopold, the second son got named after his Bavarian grandfather, and then they didn't have any more sons.

I thought there might have been an element of "placating awful Uncle Leopold" in this somewhere; I just forgot about "deceased Prince Leopold" taking precedence over "deceased Prince Baudouin", so to speak. It makes sense, too – surely Albert would have remembered his young cousin and minded him far less as a namesake?

It doesn't quite answer why neither Leopold III nor Charles had Baudouin even as a middle name, but it skews it slightly away from "unresolved grief" to "lack of opportunity".

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Gawin

Before it became a kingdom in 1830, Belgium was made up of various independent provinces including Flanders and Hainaut. The counts and dukes who ruled over these provinces were sovereign, independent rulers, whose territories ultimately fell by inheritance to the Habsburgs. The Coburgs chose to honor this independent past (and link themselves to it) when they selected the name Baudouin. It specifically honored Flanders, which had a fractious relationship with the rest of Belgium, and harbored a strong secessionist sentiment.

You make some good points. The historical perspective of modern-day Belgians apparently views the reigns of the Spanish, Austrian, French and Dutch monarchs over the Belgian provinces as a period of colonial rule, with independence being resurrected only in 1830. So as you say, it was sensitive to optics to link the new royal house to the provincial monarchs of the earlier medieval period.

Originally Posted by Somebody

If her firstborn would be a daughter, it would be a little harder to predict. Charlotte would probably be one of the safer bets? But given that the future grand duke is already a Charles, I hope she'll pick something else. Clementine would both be a traditional name, one with some history within the family (both in male and female form - most famous: princess Clementine); and one of Mathilde's great-grandfathers was Clément, ridder van Outryve d'Ydewalle, so that part of her family would also be recognized.

In European ruling families, which typically choose names of prior monarchs for male heirs, I hope to see female heirs equally identified with the royal history of their realm. Therefore, I would like to see the name of a Belgian monarch used for a potential firstborn daughter of Elisabeth.

Originally Posted by Somebody

Note: names are mostly in Dutch... They typically also use a French version of the name.

Apart from the kings, I would say they mostly use the French versions of their names. Prince Laurent for example is known as Laurent even in Dutch.

Originally Posted by magnik

Amedeo Marie Joseph Carl Pierre Philippe Paola Marcus (1986- );

Amedeo's birth certificate shows his forename to be "Amedeo Maria Josef Carl Pierre Philippe Paola Marco d'Aviano".

His daughter's forename in its entirety, according to her birth certificate, is "Anna Astrid Marie".

https://www.lesoir.be/53935/article/...us-de-belgique

[CyrilVladisla]

Wikipedia lists the eldest child and heir-apparent of King Leopold I as Louis Philippe Leopold Victor Ernest. I believe the Louis Philippe is after his maternal grandfather, King Louis Philippe I of the French.

[maria-olivia]

Indeed and Charlotte for his daughter for Leopold I first wife.

[Tatiana Maria]

Is Leopold viewed as a reusable name for a future royal prince, or have the actions of Leopold II, and to a lesser degree Leopold III, ended its viability as a royal name for the foreseeable future?

I am aware of Princess Esmeralda's son Leopoldo Moncada, but he was raised outside of the realm as a private citizen and is probably not considered to be royal.

[maria-olivia]

For the Rooyal Belgians it is better to have a name which is not different from french and Dutch
Leopold = Leopold
Philippe = Filip
Baudouin = Baudewijn
Charles = Karel
Astrid = Astrid
Laurent = Laurent
Elisabeth = Elisabeth
Gabriel = Gabriel
Emmanuel = Emmanuel
Eléonore = Eléonore.