Baby Cambridge: Potential Names and Godparents


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Countessmeout, I wondered how the Belgians pronounced Mathilde's name, and last night I heard a clip of Phillipe pronouncing it just as we would, Matilda. It was a clip of their wedding, she was very lovely--it was on a thread here at TRF.

Yes, Ish, I know that the Walters and Alans were before the election of one of them as king. There were six "stewards", one after the other. Robert became king.
 
Last edited:
Countessmeout, I wondered how the Belgians pronounced Mathilde's name, and last night I heard a clip of Phillipe pronouncing it just as we would, Matilda. It was a clip of their wedding, she was very lovely--it was on a thread here at TRF.

Yes, Ish, I know that the Walters and Alans were before the *election* of one of them as king. There were six "stewards", one after the other. Robert became king.

By election, do you mean to say that Robert II gained the throne through anything other than primogeniture? While the early Scottish monarchs (and English monarchs for that matter) were elected into their position, all Scottish monarchs after David I gained their position through primogeniture, with the possible exception of John Balliol and Robert the Bruce, who each based their claim to the throne through primogeniture but had to be supported through other means (Balliol through Edward of England and the Bruce through conquest).

Robert II became king not because his father was the High Stewart of Scotland, but rather because his mother was the daughter of the Bruce, and his uncle, David II, died without children leaving Robert as the heir.
 
Not sure if Lennon would appreciate it
 
exactly... I mean those are all perfectly royal names and british icons to boot? that would be cool, lol
 
I think if we were going to go with Beatlesmania as an inspiration we should change the order of the names - Richard George John Paul.

Richard - a royal name that isn't used in the immediate family
George - the Queen's father, plus one of Charles' middle names
John - Diana's father
Paul - a tribute to the Greek's; Paul of Greece was, I believe, the DoE's cousin, while William is godfather to Pavlos of Greece's eldest son.

The more I think about it, the more I think "John" is an unlucky name in both the BRF and the Beatles, so maybe it's not best to lead with it.
 
you are right... the john negates the whole thing. shoot. but seriously, a baby john is highly unlikely to die young now which is the main reason john is a no go. seems silly to me.
 
Now, if it's a girl we have a bit of a problem. The best selling UK girl group is the Spice Girls. While Victoria and Emma can both pass as royal, Melanie and Geraldine are a bit of a stretch. Middle names could be used, and I would say go Victoria Emma Caroline.
 
Is there a comparable all girls' band with such traditional names that it could end up as the baby's name? I've wracked my brains. Best I can come up with is the Bronte sisters:

Charlotte Emily Anne
 
Is there a comparable all girls' band with such traditional names that it could end up as the baby's name? I've wracked my brains. Best I can come up with is the Bronte sisters:

Charlotte Emily Anne

Ooh, I like that. I would change the order again because of Charlotte Spencer, and perhaps add in Emily's middle name (Jane).
 
don't know about that... but how about some stones? Charles Michael Ronald could all work being both royal and family names but keith not so much.
 
don't know about that... but how about some stones? Charles Michael Ronald could all work being both royal and family names but keith not so much.

Isn't Fergie's dad called Ronald? Somehow, I don't think that's gonna happen.
 
thinking of kates granddad really but see your point.
 
don't know about that... but how about some stones? Charles Michael Ronald could all work being both royal and family names but keith not so much.

I would say go with the Charles Michael Ronald as a second child's name (I would include the Keith as well, just for continuity's sake). It seems to honour Catherine's family more than William's - which is totally appropriate, but somehow I can't help but feel that the first child, and the heir, should be more Royal in its name than Middleton.

you are right... the john negates the whole thing. shoot. but seriously, a baby john is highly unlikely to die young now which is the main reason john is a no go. seems silly to me.

The thing with John is more than just a couple Prince Johns dying young. The overall history of the name Prince Johns of England (or therabouts) has almost always been bad.

The first English royal John was John of England. He's known for the Magna Carta (which he didn't willingly sign) and being a villain in the Robin Hood stories.

The second John was John of Eltham, Earl of Cornwall, son of Edward II. He died at age 20.

The third John was John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster, third son of Edward III. Overall he was actually pretty successful in life, lived until he was 58, and had several children. It was his eldest son, the future Henry IV, who started the War of the Roses, and later it was one of his descendants, Henry VII, who ended it.

The next John was John of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Bedford, and son of Henry IV. While he lived to age 46 and even acted as regent for his nephew, Henry VI, he died without legitimate surviving issue.

The fifth John is John of Gloucester, who was the illegitimate son of Richard III. It's believed that he was executed during the reign of Henry VII.

The sixth John is Prince John Alexander of Wales, youngest child of Edward VII and the only one to not live past a couple days.

The final John is Prince John of the United Kingdom, who was epileptic, hidden from the public eye, and died at age 13.

There's also John Balliol, King of Scots, who is best known for abdicating the throne in favour of the English Edward I. From his abdication to the accension of Robert the Bruce 10 years later there was no Scottish monarch. He was so hated that nearly 100 years after his reign when another John came to the throne he changed his name to Robert (III) so as to not be associated with the previous John.
 
William could sing 'Beautiful Boy' :) ...can William sing, for that matter?
 
William could sing 'Beautiful Boy' :) ...can William sing, for that matter?

I've seen a video clip of William when he was in Chile, during his gap year, and he was attempting to sing along with the radio while doing something. Let's just say, it sounded pretty horrendous. However, if the baby finds its' Papa's voice soothing, that's all that matters.
 
And she'll be sure to weigh in on this, should Baby be named after John. :ermm:

Gives me an idea though. Julian is a pretty name for a boy and does have kind of a regal flair to it too. Would be totally unique to the child. King Julian... hmmmm. :D
 
you know, every thing old was new once...nine hundred years , some royal mother and hangers on were absolutely aghast at some name suggestion... "you want to name this baby Edward, what the world kind of name is that for a prince? now, ethelbald or aethelweard those are nice normal regal names!"
 
Ish, your historical knowledge is impressive! My Scots family got in trouble with Baillol, your last troubled John on the list, because they supported him over his competitor, and therefore had most of their lands in Renfrewshire confiscated. Most of their lands were given to an abbey and/or to the Maxwell family, but the next heir in the family married Agnes Maxwell, so he some of his stuff back. Thus began the habit of marrying Maxwell cousins to hang onto the stuff, a very bad habit.
 
you know, every thing old was new once...nine hundred years , some royal mother and hangers on were absolutely aghast at some name suggestion... "you want to name this baby Edward, what the world kind of name is that for a prince? now, ethelbald or aethelweard those are nice normal regal names!"

Most of the "new" names introduced to the English monarchs were because individuals who, at birth, hasn't been in the direct line of succession came to the throne. I think the only post-William I example is Edward I, and even then it wasn't a "new" name, having been used by pre-William I monarchs.

Pre-William there was a lot less repetition of names, but they didn't always follow primogeniture and a lot of brothers inherited from brothers, instead of sons.

Similar can be said in Scotland. Prior to David I they didn't necessarily follow primogeniture, and David himself was the 4th son of his father (and the 3rd to inherit the throne). I don't believe a single post-David Scottish monarch with a "new" name was born in the direct line of succession.
 
Ish, your historical knowledge is impressive! My Scots family got in trouble with Baillol, your last troubled John on the list, because they supported him over his competitor, and therefore had most of their lands in Renfrewshire confiscated. Most of their lands were given to an abbey and/or to the Maxwell family, but the next heir in the family married Agnes Maxwell, so he some of his stuff back. Thus began the habit of marrying Maxwell cousins to hang onto the stuff, a very bad habit.

Thanks Mariel!

The thing with John Balliol is that he had a lot of support. For a long time after his abdication the rebellion against the English, lead by William Wallace and Andrew Moray, was fought in the name of Balliol. The reason why Balliol and his supporters (those who didn't end up supporting the Bruce during his struggle for the throne) really became hated was because Balliol was given his throne by Edward (who had been asked to intervene in the Great Cause) over the Bruce, then essentially lost his throne to Edward. It was the Bruce who was seen as having fought back and saved Scotland from England.
 
ugh, another source reporting it inaccurately as "The Prince(ss) of Cambridge". :bang:

Wish someone would tell the American media that the title is going to be "Prince(ss) X of Cambridge," not a title in and of itself like Charles'.

Until X has a name is it really all that wrong to call it the Prince(ss) of Camridge?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom