IloveCP
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2010
- Messages
- 12,175
- City
- -
- Country
- United States
I hope the Cambridges only have sons.
May I ask why?
I hope the Cambridges only have sons.
Sure, but when was the last time a princess was named Eleanor? The last time one was named Matilda (after centuries of no Matildas in the family) was in 1751, and that one died as the exiled and disgraced queen of Denmark and Norway.
Royal Eleanors were not very lucky either. One spent many years imprisoned by her husband, one spent almost her entire life imprisoned by her uncle and cousin so that she could not claim the English crown (which she would have inherited under male-preferance primogeniture), one was so unpopular that Londoners almost stoned her to death, one was supposedly a leper, and one angered the Church by breaking her vow of chastity. To be honest, I am not surprised that there haven't been any Eleanors in the family since the Middle Ages
If every name that has some sort of bad association should be thrown away, there wouldn't be many names for them to use left Though I can't speak for the history of Matildas (other than the wonderful Empress Matilda, of course), I believe I have read somewhere that Princess Diana was very passionate about a daughter Eleanor (this could obviously be a rumour though), so that, I believe, would make the name even more attractive for them to use. Despite the fact that Eleanor of Aquitaine quite rightly was imprisoned by Henry II, she mainly is remembered for her intelligence and good sense of leadership, and I will bet that she is the Eleanor most people will think of when hearing the name. Eleanor of Aquitaine, despite the history of ill-fated Eleanors, is the epitome of a great namesake for a possible future Queen, and I still can't say that I see a reason for them to count it out (the same goes for Matilda).
William and Kate's wedding was so traditional that much of the music was either medieval or written to sound medieval (and very beautiful new "medieval" music). For this reason I think they might consult the Way Back Machine, and that "traditional" will mean old, really old, medieval. They could make an end run around all the monarchs who were steeped in controversy, were ill, were murdered, murdered too many others, etc. Way Back. I've already given a few Way Back names. The names of famous leaders in the 12th century (and late 11th and early 13th) were of people who lived in a blossoming era, who thought of themselves as making a world with all the best of tradition and the best of the new, like the new-fangled stone castles and churches. Great builders. Prince Charles knows this history and it is one reason he loves architecture and building.
Royal Eleanors were not very lucky either. One spent many years imprisoned by her husband, one spent almost her entire life imprisoned by her uncle and cousin so that she could not claim the English crown (which she would have inherited under male-preferance primogeniture), one was so unpopular that Londoners almost stoned her to death, one was supposedly a leper, and one angered the Church by breaking her vow of chastity. To be honest, I am not surprised that there haven't been any Eleanors in the family since the Middle Ages
I did not say that the names Matilda and Eleanor were unlikely because of the history of the namesakes. They are unlikely simply because... they are. None of the relatives bears one of those names and I don't see William and Catherine going all Frederik-and-Mary either (by naming their child after a medieval ancestor). To say the least, they are absolutely not doing that with the first name of the firstborn
Well, I guess we'll agree on disagreeing. I guess it must just be me, but I'd much prefer a name of my own than I'd want to share it with a relative. Again, that might be a matter of opinions Eleanor and Matilda are both old without sounding too old (as opposed to a name like George), and furthermore would Matilda be a lovely homage to Australia, but what do I know? They might choose a completely different name for all we know. Regarding that last line, do you know William and Catherine personally? Otherwise I doubt that you're in the position to judge whether they're "absolutely not doing" anything
Fine with me, as long as they don't choose Ethelred or Boadicea!
Well, I guess we'll agree on disagreeing. I guess it must just be me, but I'd much prefer a name of my own than I'd want to share it with a relative. Again, that might be a matter of opinions Eleanor and Matilda are both old without sounding too old (as opposed to a name like George), and furthermore would Matilda be a lovely homage to Australia, but what do I know? They might choose a completely different name for all we know.
I guess it must just be me, but I'd much prefer a name of my own than I'd want to share it with a relative.
Regarding that last line, do you know William and Catherine personally? Otherwise I doubt that you're in the position to judge whether they're "absolutely not doing" anything
^^^^
Sure. All boys avoids any issues around the new succession laws being passed in a rush and it avoids the possibility of a Princess or Queen Diana which would be fodder for the tabloids. Also when you have a future king you eventully are likely to get a future Queen Consort.
Of course, why would we want sexist laws over turned? Phew, bring on the boys.
Or William could just not name a child Diana.
Oh my god, we may get a queen consort? So exciting, I didn't think of that possibility. A queen consort, throw out the changes to the laws, queen consorts are so fabulous, we should only have kings.Who needs those darn things called prince consorts.
Which spelling would they use?
The older one - Boadicea or the more accepted modern one Boudicca - with the older soft 'c' and then the 'e' and 'a' pronounced separately or the hard 'k' sound with just the 'a' as is the now accepted pronounciation of the name of the Iceni Queen who challenged Rome resulting in the deaths and mutilations of 100,000s of Britons and Romans, through war and then starvation (the Britons were so convinced that they would win they didn't both sowing their crops that summer and so had no food for the subsequent winter).
Of course, why would we want sexist laws over turned? Phew, bring on the boys.
Or William could just not name a child Diana.
Oh my god, we may get a queen consort? So exciting, I didn't think of that possibility. A queen consort, throw out the changes to the laws, queen consorts are so fabulous, we should only have kings.Who needs those darn things called prince consorts.
Oh, I am not saying that I do not like the names. They are both great, but if we are going to be realistic, we have to admit that they are simply very unlikely choices. As I said, I would be thrilled if they named their baby Malcolm/Alexander/David/Robert/Margaret (basically if they took the name out of the list of Scottish monarchs), but I am aware that the chances of that happening are very, very slim
These two parts of your post just don't work well together, don't you think? Either we both can identify with them, or neither of us can
I wouldn't be surprised if they went with Philip as a first name, either, tihkon2. Actually, it's my absolute top choice if a prince is born. I think that the Duke of Edinburgh has been such a presence in the life of the monarchy and his contributions can be overlooked sometimes. It would be a lovely tribute to the man who's had to walk two steps behind HMTQ for so long.
... I'd love to see a little Princess Diana, and I think they'd be more likely to name a child after William's mother if she isn't directly in line to the throne)