Why Harry/Henry??

[KittyAtlanta]

Back when Diana was expecting Harry, she wanted to name him Oliver. Charles put his foot down as I recall.

Originally Posted by Spheno

It is simple. "Harry" is not christian name. There is no "Saint Harry". Harry is a nickname or derivative, but not proper chriatian name.

Don't tell my grandfather, Harry, that his name is not a proper Christian name.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta

Back when Diana was expecting Harry, she wanted to name him Oliver. Charles put his foot down as I recall.

Diana seriously wanted to call him Oliver? I can understand why she wanted John for Prince William and why it was not used in the end (the name being her father's name but also viewed as cursed in the RF). Oliver, however, is another case - the name is literally associated with destroying (or attempting to) the monarchy. I can see why Charles vetoed it; it seems kind of tactless for Diana to have suggested it.

[NGalitzine]

Maybe she was a fan of "Love Story".

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

Maybe she was a fan of "Love Story".

Or Charles Dickens.

I doubt Oliver Cromwell was the reason Charles vetoed the name. After all, royal babies still get named Richard and Henry despite the fact Richard Cromwell succeeded his father as the Lord Protector and Henry Cromwell was Lord Deputy of Ireland.

[Ish]

Yes, but there's a lot more of an association between Oliver Cromwell, the English Civil War, the execution of the king (also named Charles), and the (albeit temporarily) dissolution of the monarchy, than there is with the names "Richard" or "Henry," especially as both Richard and Henry have also been used as regal names.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Ish

Yes, but there's a lot more of an association between Oliver Cromwell, the English Civil War, the execution of the king (also named Charles), and the (albeit temporarily) dissolution of the monarchy, than there is with the names "Richard" or "Henry," especially as both Richard and Henry have also been used as regal names.

And if you can find anyone who's not royal, has read history or is potentially on this forum that knows who Oliver Cromwell is in the UK I'll eat a hat!

[NGalitzine]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

And if you can find anyone who's not royal, has read history or is potentially on this forum that knows who Oliver Cromwell is in the UK I'll eat a hat!

Has the state school system become that bad that someone could graduate without ever hearing Cromwell mentioned? Thats is pathetic but certainly explains a lot.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

Has the state school system become that bad that someone could graduate without ever hearing Cromwell mentioned? Thats is pathetic but certainly explains a lot.

My 15 years of UK education in North Yorkshire and Oxford I have never been taught about Cromwell or the surrounding issues. I know of him from research through other areas of history.

[Artemisia]

If that's true than the British education system has lost its outstanding qualities since my parents studied there. When the new generation doesn't know its history, it's simply tragic. And like it or not, Cromwell is a huge part of English history.

Even in our (Armenian) school we studied the English Revolutioin and the character of Oliver Cromwell separately; I even wrote an essay on him. Admittedly, it's a private school but I know that English history is taught in virtually all English-oriented schools here.

[Alison H]

The Spencer red hair dates back to Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, who would be ecstatic to know that her direct descendant Prince William was the future king :-).

It's becoming increasingly common to call children Jack rather than John, Charlie rather than Charles, Harry rather than Henry, etc, but royals do have to stick with tradition to a certain extent, and go with the "official" version of the name.

Prince Charles did say years ago that he planned to be known as George VII, but I can't see it. George VI chose to be known as George rather than Albert partly to show continuity with his father after all the upset of the Abdication and partly because (as with Edward VII) the name Albert was associated with the German Prince Albert, whereas George was seen as a British name ... er, despite not having been used by any British royals before the Hanoverians! Edward VII was known as Prince Edward even though his family called him Bertie: everyone knows Prince Charles as Charles and it would be totally weird to start calling him George!

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

My 15 years of UK education in North Yorkshire and Oxford I have never been taught about Cromwell or the surrounding issues. I know of him from research through other areas of history.

That's scary.

In Canada (or at least the part that I live in) we go over English/British history from Henry VIII to Charles II, as well as the American and French Revolutions in grade 8 and 9 - before we even go into Canadian history. It's a bit disturbing if the British aren't learning about such a significant part of modern history but members of the Commonwealth are.

[EIIR]

I was certainly taught about the Civil War, Cromwell and the Glorious Revolution at my school in Northern Ireland. I vividly remember learning about 1066, Henry V, the Tudors, the mad George III, the Victorian era, right up to the two world wars. We also learned about other international events, not just English or British history.

I could well believe that a large chunk of the population wouldn't know about Cromwell. A sizeable proportion of schoolchildren, when asked who Churchill was will say a nodding dog who sells car insurance.

[cinrit]

I'm American, and I knew who Oliver Cromwell was before I turned 21. And that was ... well, quite some time ago!

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Alison H

The Spencer red hair dates back to Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, who would be ecstatic to know that her direct descendant Prince William was the future king :-).

I don't know how common it's been in the Royals recently, but red hair has popped up before, notably the Tudors.

Prince Charles did say years ago that he planned to be known as George VII, but I can't see it. George VI chose to be known as George rather than Albert partly to show continuity with his father after all the upset of the Abdication and partly because (as with Edward VII) the name Albert was associated with the German Prince Albert, whereas George was seen as a British name ... er, despite not having been used by any British royals before the Hanoverians! Edward VII was known as Prince Edward even though his family called him Bertie: everyone knows Prince Charles as Charles and it would be totally weird to start calling him George!

I agree with you completely here. It should also be noted that in the few cases were a name other than the Prince's Christian name has become the regnal name there have been.. Circumstances. Victoria's given name had not simply been Victoria (I believe it was Alexandra or something similar), but she had been called Princess Victoria. Edward VII had been Prince Albert Edward (it had been his mother's desire that after him every monarch be Albert something), but he went against that when he became king, likely because his relationship with his father had been less than stellar. George VI had previously been known as Duke of York more than his given name, so people wouldn't have necessarily gotten used to calling him either Albert or Bertie. Similarly, while Edward VII had been called David by the family, he had been Prince Edward. To see Charles cease to be Charles and become George will/would be weird.

Regardless, though, we are getting a bit off topic.

[Trillian]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

My 15 years of UK education in North Yorkshire and Oxford I have never been taught about Cromwell or the surrounding issues. I know of him from research through other areas of history.

We covered the Dark Ages, up to and including the Reformation period (UK and Europe), the Restoration of the British Monarchy in Junior High. From 1748 to 1945 UK (including the British / our monarchs) and other countries including our own in Modern History in the Senior School -Yrs11 &12.

This during the 70s in New South Wales. Not some much emphasis in it these days, but it's still part if our heritage, still being a Commonwealth Country.

[Mariel]

Oh goodness, Artemisea, I should have realized it was the press and Diana that distorted Prince Charles' statement about his son's red hair. He has been a loving father indeed.
I take it all back. But my comment about the early Stuarts is true. Ginger!

[Meadow]

Calling someone Harry instead of Harry has been around for donkeys years same as Jack/John, Richard/Dick (which thank goodness has gone out of fashion) Phillip/Phyliss can be Pip/Pippa. I doubt Diana honestly even thought about Oliver Cromwell chances are she liked the name there was a time she and Charles were close yet for some reason whatever she did was to spite Charles somehow. There are names we all like and a lot of girls think of what they will name their babies a long time before they have any. Diana worked in a nursery and loved kids and somewhere along the line she liked Oliver and William and Harry. I never heard of either boy being named after anyone in the family they were names the couple both liked and would go well with Prince and with their future roles. William gets called Wills and Henry get's Harry which actually suits him I think. Harry is a lot cheekeir sounding then the more straight Henry. My gran was called Gwen her whole life I never knew her name was in fact Gwendoline till after her death. As for the red hair I love boys with red hair I know some people don't but I've always had a soft spot for a red head and they are becoming more common so chances are the new baby could be a red head. I think Charles will be over the moon no matter what colour the babies hair is or it's name. Royals do have other considerations most of us don't have to worry about the press mucking about with our name.

[KittyAtlanta]

I don't think Diana wanted to spite Charles (it was a good time for them, I think). I think she liked the name from the popular musical of the time, Oliver!

I would never believe she would, at that time, had even a smidge of thinking about Oliver Cromwell.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta

I don't think Diana wanted to spite Charles (it was a good time for them, I think). I think she liked the name from the popular musical of the time, Oliver!

I would never believe she would, at that time, had even a smidge of thinking about Oliver Cromwell.

I doubt she wanted it to spite Charles at all. My comment is more that however well intended the name might have been - it was popular, she just liked it, it was a family name, whatever - it still would have been rather tacky. Giving the heir to the British throne's second son the name of the Lord Protector is tacky, no matter the intent. Her desire to have named her first son after her father is understandable, and the whole idea of "John" being cursed in the BRF isn't one that people necessarily realize. As the spouse to the heir to the British throne, however, she should have realized that Oliver as a name would have been a bit inappropriate.

Although, given the way their relationship ended, I do find it a bit ironic that the next King Charles (if he goes with that name) almost had a son named Oliver.

[Pranter]

I could see Diana not knowing about Charles/Oliver, she said herself she wasn't good a school and was a thick as a plank about some things.

She was still very young when she had Harry and I don't recall anyone ever talking about her love of 'ancient' British History.


LaRae