Why Harry/Henry??


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Viv

Courtier
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
806
City
Funen
Country
Denmark
I'm almost certain that the answer is buried somewhere in the inner core of the Royal Forums, but a quick trawl doesn't seem to help:

Would somone please tell me, why Prince Harry's official name is Prince Henry or- vice versa - why Harry is used in stead of his official name??. I know that it was decided by his parents in 1984, but IMO that doesn't explain why. I know that the name 'Henry' has precedence in the BRF and that Harry hasn't, but that doesn't explain it either, IMO.

Did 'someone' object to Harry as a 'proper' name, if you know what I mean :whistling:? Or put differently: As the first 'spare' would Prince Harry be denied a name unknown to the royal tradition?

Thanks!

Viv
 
The prince is born as Prince Henry but he is called in the family Harry.
 
Harry is traditionally the nickname of men named Henry. Henry is a French name dating from when the British aristocracy spoke French. The English pronunciation for it is "Harry".
 
Maybe an offtop, but it nurtures me:

But President Truman's name was not Henry, was it?
 
No, his name was Harry. My comment in #3 was related exclusively to usage in the UK.
 
Harry is traditionally the nickname of men named Henry. Henry is a French name dating from when the British aristocracy spoke French. The English pronunciation for it is "Harry".

The French version of Henry is Henri and, as KittyAtlanta explained, it is spoken with a nasal sound which sounds more like "Harry" than "Henry". So it is understandible why Prince Henry became Prince Harry, though I have never heard if it was planned by his parents or just happened.
 
Maybe king Henry VIII would also be called Harry when he was young?
 
I think Henry VIII was sometimes referred to as Hal. Henry Percy (believed to have been pledged at one time to Anne Boleyn) was known as Harry Percy.
 
but could not his parents have named officially Harry instead of Henry? it seems they personally wanted his son to be called Harry, so why not named it officially? i understand its a nickname for Henry and it makes sense if it eventually came to "Harry" with time, but since they decided it since the birth, its so weird Charles&Diana didnt opt for Harry at the birth registration.
 
:previous: Most likely because it's a name in honor of a relative or ancestor.
 
but could not his parents have named officially Harry instead of Henry?.

They could have, they chose not to. It's kind of like when people choose to be known by their middle name.
 
I don't really understand the question here... isn't it quite common to have a different everyday name than your baptism name... i have: i'm baptized as Elisabeth, but the name my birth-announcement card was Liset (which is obviously a short version)...
Nothing strange about that, has been the way for ages in my culture :)
 
Lumutqueen, you are right on that Shakespeare has Prince Henry referred to as Hal or Harry.
The new baby--they might be careful if they pick a name which has a common nickname which isn't royal sounding. But Harry has precedence, even if only in Shakespeare,and sounds royal in that tradition.
It seems to me that it would be wonderful to chose a name for a baby which harks back to a distinguished ancestor who was not too troubled. Henry VIII is certainly a troubled reference for most of us. A name like, say, Robert, refers back to royal personages who are less troubled? I am not sure of the whole history of the royal Roberts' lives.
 
Last edited:
It would be difficult to find a king with a worst reputation than Henry VIII, but there were seven other King Henrys before Henry VIII. One of them was the founder of Eton College, so it's not really such a bad name.
 
Nope, as i mentioned, it's quite common (at least in some religions), but if you guys want to find some hidden meaning behind it, speculate ahead :flowers:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just think of it along the lines of naming your son James and calling him Jim or Richard and calling him Rick, or like a friend of ours whose daughter is Alexandra but is always called Allie.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Roslyn: I agree with you and I've often wondered why anyone would do that.
When a child is named John, he is often called Jack. Robert becomes Bob. William becomes Will or Bill. James becomes Jim. Elizabeth becomes Bets, Betty, Liz, etc. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just think of it along the lines of naming your son James and calling him Jim or Richard and calling him Rick, or like a friend of ours whose daughter is Alexandra but is always called Allie.

But it's different to your child having a nickname, Harry is always known as Harry and only rarely spoken about as Prince Henry. When he was annonced during the Olympics, nobody knew who they were talking about.
 
Just think of it along the lines of naming your son James and calling him Jim or Richard and calling him Rick, or like a friend of ours whose daughter is Alexandra but is always called Allie.

I see what you mean, but I think this is a bit different, and more extreme. When you name your child James or Richard or Alexandra, you don't announce at the time of their birth or christening that you will be calling them by the nickname. My husband is a Richard. His parents often called him Rich, and his friends often called him Rick when he was young. I call him Richard. Richard is his name. When he was born his family didn't say, 'His name is Richard but we're going to call him Rich'. Nicknames usually just happen, they aren't planned, and sometimes different people use different nicknames for the same person.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I remember the announcement at the time and I thought it was strange. I thought, 'If you're going to call him Harry, why don't you name him Harry?'
 
Last edited:
There seem to be two schools of thought on this. My sister (and apparently Prince Harry's parents) subscribed to a more traditionalist position: it's fine to plan to use an informal name day to day, but the child needs a "proper" name.

Thus my niece is officially Eleanor and has been known as Ellie from the day she was born; she has a "grown-up" name to fall back on.

My friend on the other hand named her daughter Kate as, like a number of folk on this thread, she couldn't comprehend why you would name a girl Catherine if you set out with the intention of calling her Kate.

(My sister finds "Eleanor" useful for occasional emphasis, similar to something I remember PoW saying about Prince Harry "he's only Henry when he's very naughty indeed!")
 
It isn't uncommon, IME, for parents to name their child one thing and make it known right away that his or her name for daily use will be a certain nickname. A couple may like Jack or Ellie or Will - maybe more than they actually like John, Eleanor or William - but not be willing to give their child a moniker that's traditionally been a nickname. Most parents wouldn't make a formal public announcement of it, no, (although I've seen a couple of birth announcements where the nickname's been included), but, then again, most parents wouldn't be making an official public announcement regarding anything about their newborn.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Personally I like the more formal name and let the child grow into whatever derivitive of the name fits their personality.

I think Royals are famous for having a formal name and a nickname

Edward VIII - was always called David ... his last of 6 names
George VI - was Bertie a derivitive of Albert his first name
 
Personally I like the more formal name and let the child grow into whatever derivitive of the name fits their personality.

I think this is the way it should be. :)

I think Royals are famous for having a formal name and a nickname

Edward VIII - was always called David ... his last of 6 names
George VI - was Bertie a derivitive of Albert his first name

And HM is known as Lilibet to her family and friends.

I'm wondering whether it is a cultural thing to give a child a formal name and then plan from the start to call them something else. It is common in the USA or the UK, or other countries? I do not think it is a common practice here in Australia.
 
"Harry" is not a nickname. Examples of nicknames could be my poster name on here which is used by close family. There's a reason for it and I'm sure others on here have friends and family with nicknames. It is not linked to my given name.

Harry is an abbreviation of his given name - as is Kate for Catherine, Bertie for Albert etc.
 
I'm wondering whether it is a cultural thing to give a child a formal name and then plan from the start to call them something else. It is common in the USA or the UK, or other countries? I do not think it is a common practice here in Australia.

I agree, it must be a cultural think; one poster in this thread seems to find the original question really odd. I find it a very good question - I too have always found it very odd that Harry's parents give him one name and then at the same time announce another name to be used for him. I've never heard of parents who have done that in Denmark.
Of course nick/pet names will develop - but they somehow develop naturally and are not announced as a name the child should be called.
 
Yep, cultural difference then: here (south of the Netherlands, the catholic part) it has always been common practice, I can't think of anyone in my family who has the same baptism name as everyday name, and the everyday name is announced from day 1 (although the last decades the traditional baptism names seem to be replaced more and more with "exotic" (read: english ;-) ) names and then the baptism name tends to be the same as the every-day name...)

For me it's really odd that you guys even noticed that Henry/Harry as something out of the ordinary :lol:

edited: ah, I remember one of my cousins has the same name for both, and that was very odd and "new-age" back then when he was born ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Harry" is not a nickname. Examples of nicknames could be my poster name on here which is used by close family. There's a reason for it and I'm sure others on here have friends and family with nicknames. It is not linked to my given name.

Harry is an abbreviation of his given name - as is Kate for Catherine, Bertie for Albert etc.

Hmm. Have to take issue with this, I'm afraid.

My trusty Concise Oxford Dictionary defines nick-name as:

"Name added to or substituted for person's, place's, or thing's proper name; abbreviation or familiar form of Christian name."

Therefore "Harry" is most certainly a nickname, being a substitute for, or familiar form of, his proper name. It is not an abbreviation of his given name. An abbreviation, by definition, is a shorter form, and "Harry" has the same number of letters as "Henry". Neither Kate nor Bertie is an abbreviation, either, merely a familiar form of the proper name; though maybe "Kate" could squeeze into the definition.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom