Should Names Be Anglicized?
 

I don't know about you, but I've been having a bit of a mini-controversy between my royalist friends and myself over whether to anglicize royal names. They had no idea who I was talking about when I brought up John Charles of Spain. I always anglicize, since it makes it easier to compare monarchs with different names in different countries, like HRE Charles V, who was also Karl, Carl and Carlos. Is it more appropriate to use their name as is, or can we anglicize it?

I'm not a fan of anglicizing royal names. It always annoys me when people call the Russian rulers by English names (Peter II the Great, Catherine II the Great, Nicholas I, Nicholas II, etc). I think the names should be kept authentic, because the person is not English, but Russian (or whatever country we're talking about). I guess I'm used to saying 'Juan Carlos' when talking about the Spanish monarch, so I would keep the name as it were. I remember when I still lived in Russia, the reporters referred to Elizabeth II as 'Elizaveta II', and it confused the daylight out of me. I kept thinking that Her Majesty was Russian, rather than English. And I still get annoyed with the Russian news when they refer to the Duchess of Cambridge as 'Yekaterina' rather than 'Catherine' (at least that's how my grandmother calls her, and when I asked where she got the russified version, she told me 'on the Russian television station').

But what about the Charles V example? People would assume Karl V, Carlos I, etc to be different people wouldn't they?

Honestly? I haven't got the foggiest clue :unsure:. I've never heard of Charles being referred to by any other name rather than 'Charles' (probably because there was no equivalent for his name in Russian). The only time I've heard anyone call him 'Carlos' was in my sophomore Spanish class, when we were discussing the British Royals (it was after Diana's passing). I think in that case, I knew whom the teacher was talking about, because there was a contextual clue. However, I can see where some confusion can take place.

There's actually a great Spanish candy bar called Carlos V, named after him; it'd be weird if they sold it as Karl I. BTW, the candy has him as "El Rey de los Chocolates". I guess that's another title for him :lol:

That's priceless :biggrin:. Makes me wonder if HM enjoys chocolate.

I'm against anglicizeing royal names, well I'm actually against translating names into any language. It's Juan Carlos not John Charles, Mikhail and not Michael, people should be IMO called what they were named whether they are royal or not as the name also the reference to their heritage and that should be absolutely kept.

Yes,but I've observed that Spanish media call prince William"Guillermo".while the French call princess Grace differently ,with the French equivalent word.

I am also against anglicizeing royal names, they were given their name for a specific reason. Like Princess Isabella of Denmark, I wouldn't change it to Princess Elizabeth or Juan Carlos or John Carlos.

I also dislike it when people spell names wrong, like spelling CP Frederik of Denmark with an extra C 'Frederick'. Or changing Wilhelm to William - two different names.

I think though it also depends a bit on the name and its general usage in the language e.g. Juan Carlos is always referred to as Juan Carlos but Nicholas II is never called anything else in the English speaking world so the normal usage is what should be used to aid communication - after all it is no use referring to someone by a name that people don't recognise.

Calling Juan Carlos John Charles for instance had me scratching my head as to whom was meant but if someone used a Russian name for Nicholas II I would again be scratching my head as every history I have ever read, and every documentary I have seen always call him Nicholas II (because they are only in English - sorry but I only speak one language and the two I have tried to learn - French and Italian were both just too hard for me - I admire anyone who can learn a foreign language as it is a skill I simply can't do - I can't even manage the swear words in Arabic/Vietnamese that I hear every day at work).

With anglisized names (or germanised) I get totaly confused .. there would be to many Karl II .... I very much prefer the names to be the *original* once .. than it is clear of which country one speaks and doesnt get confused to much ..

Think of the horror of all those french Louis to confuse with all the german "ludwigs" ... too bad that in wikipedia they take that for standart ....

For me there is no problem because the books I use use Louis and Ludwig - they don't use the Russian names without Anglicising probably because they also have to transliterate the name from Cyrillic so may as well Anglicise the name while names with the same alphabet they use the name the same - of course I see William II a lot for the Kaiser as well as Wilhelm.

This may be a simplistic answer, but this is an English-speaking forum.
There are translation facilities all over the web.

Even if this is an English-speaking forum many of the members are from countries that are not English-speaking. It's true that in some of those countries royal names are transcribed to their equivalent in the native tongue, but not in all countries, for example that is not done in Sweden. If the names was to be anglicized here at least I would be very confused about whom the royals were and I would loose the interest for this forum.

So, would this mean that we can only refer to William as Guglielmo or Guillaume ?

No, I mean that the names the royals have in their own countries should be used, for example William, Duke of Cambridge, Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange and Guillaume, Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg and not use William for all three of them.

There is: Карл (Karl)

Yes,the name "Karl" is more known due to historical reasons,but there is no purely Russian equivalent for it,as "Karl" has German roots,while we have for example equivalents for names "John"(Ivan) or "Andrew"(Andrei)etc.

Nor for my Russian patronym / Olga Genrikhovna

In any case, I just realized I'm breaking my own rule: I always call the dual monarchs of Castile and Aragon Ferdinand and Isabella, not Ferdinand and Elizabeth. Something about a Spanish queen named Elizabeth doesn't sound right to me. I imagine it would be harder for women, since they'd marry into a (possibly) foreign-speaking court where their name would have to be translated. The last Czarina of Russia is a perfect example; she was named after her mother (Alice of Great Britain) but was from Hesse, where there is no German word for Alice. So they spelled it like it sounds: Alix. When she married, they Christianized the name, as usual in Russian royal marriages, this time to Alexandra. So a woman born with one name now can go by three! Its too confusing... :bang: