PrinceHarrysWife
Gentry
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2014
- Messages
- 55
- City
- London
- Country
- Canada
I like Sophia Elizabeth Mary for a girl.
And for a boy I like Arthur Philip Henry
And for a boy I like Arthur Philip Henry
My friend, who only follows royals at a distance, mentioned to me that she heard that everybody thinks it will be a girl called Alice, to which she added, "which means it won't be."
LOL When George was about to be born, everybody expected a girl and not too many were expecting a George. I really like the name Alice. If the baby Cambridge 2 was not a Alice, I hope Princess Madeleine's second girl (if it's a girl, of course) would be a Alice too (after Queen Silvia's mother).
So why is Alice so super special and so anticipated? Why not Mary or Charlotte or Amelia or the other appropriate Royal female names?
So why is Alice so super special and so anticipated? Why not Mary or Charlotte or Amelia or the other appropriate Royal female names?
My friend, who only follows royals at a distance, mentioned to me that she heard that everybody thinks it will be a girl called Alice, to which she added, "which means it won't be."
A lot of people thought the first baby would be a boy named George ... and it was. So
Andrew wasn't a name in the British royals until the Queen and Philip used it for their second son.
I still don't buy into not being able to use a name already in use within the family.
Let's not forget the reasoning behind Prince George's names - George for obvious reasons because one day he will be king and so it had to be something along those lines. Alexander Louis were chosen simply because they liked the names - well that's what I understood anyway.
So with that in mind and if William and Catherine stick with that name-choosing formula, the first name will be more traditional and the other names......well, anything goes I suppose! That hasn't helped has it!?
Sorry for offtop but i sometimes just don't understand this tradition to give heirs only used before names. The first Cambridge child could have had an unique name, he could have been The First. Prince Arthur or Albert... But they choose only from previouse reighing monarchs' names.
And we can predict that George's own children will have names Charles, Henry, Elizabeth/Catherine, Edward and so on. Even James is unlikely.
Oh, I agree but that was more than century ago, maybe it's time to bring in new names. Oh just use some not so common. What's wrong with Albert/David as a first name?Or the Prussian royal family with all the Friedrichs and Wilhelms. All those French Monarchs named Louis. The Romanovs tended to stay in the Alexandr, Nicholas repeat position in the last century or so of its existence, as well.
Aren't Beatrice and Eugenie both names used by Queen Victoria for her daughters.
Zara was never going to be Royal in the same way Charlses boys or Andrews girls were. They could experiment out of the box.But Eugenie was a bit of a wildcard also- does anyone know why they chose that one?
I've always thought Prince Charles suggested it to his sister and Anne liked it. I don't believe its a traditional name at all, but I can't remember where Charles got it from!
Oh, I agree but that was more than century ago, maybe it's time to bring in new names. Oh just use some not so common. What's wrong with Albert/David as a first name?
How about a double-barrelled first name as King Willem-Alexander and the Princess of Orange have? One traditional, one more modern - as a way of introducing a more modern first name for our British monarchs. Traditions have to start from somewhere!