Baby Cambridge: Potential Names and Godparents

[Ish]

I've always been fascinating by the tradition (in the past) of British Royals using the same set of names for their legitimate and illegitimate children - not even cousins. I think there must have been some sense of magic or honor in the names..

I've often wondered how much of that was the father's doing, and how much was the way that different mothers of illegitimate children tried to go "this is your son."

 

[Countessmeout]

They'd have to choose a name that hasn't been used by a previous king, to stay away from a 'controvercial' name. All the names have a bad rep at some point.

Edward-Longshanks
George-Mad King George
James-whole Glorious revolution plus tons of history with the Scottish ones before
Charles- whole beheading
John-cursed or so some say
Henry- Henry VIII
Richard-Richard III

 

[amaryllus]

if he wants to use James all that bad, he should at least ask Edward and Sophie first.

 

[Roslyn]

I see no problem with this child being called James, if that is what his parents want. His is the principal family, and what they say goes, I would think. The fact his first cousin once removed might have the same name shouldn't big a big deal. There'd be five and a half years between them, which is a lot when kids are young. It's not as though they're likely to be together a lot, especially not once Charles is king and family dynamics shift.

 

[QUEENECE29]

Alexander George Charles Michael

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

I think he looks like an Alexander, but I don't think that Philip or Arthur would look odd on him either. George on the other hand ... but that's just me thinking that George looks odd on any human being under the age of eighteen

 

[Molly2101]

I see no problem with this child being called James, if that is what his parents want. His is the principal family, and what they say goes, I would think. The fact his first cousin once removed might have the same name shouldn't big a big deal. There'd be five and a half years between them, which is a lot when kids are young. It's not as though they're likely to be together a lot, especially not once Charles is king and family dynamics shift.

You say they may not be together a lot, but they may well be as they are similar in age. Look how close William is to Zara and Peter. Yes they are first cousins, and when Harry has children this little boy will be close to them. James is likely to be in this child's life, and they will spend Christmas together every year for the next decade or so (until Charles changes the tradition, which he may do when he is King.)

I also think he looks like an Alexander. That's my top bet for his first name.

Alexander Arthur Philip Michael, as it seems Arthur and Philip in Charles and William's names is a little tradition.

 

[amaryllus]

I see no problem with this child being called James, if that is what his parents want. His is the principal family, and what they say goes, I would think

I would hope William and Kate would not instill or be an example of that sense of entitlement in their future children..and the queen and Phillip I have a feeling would set them down real quick about who says to jump and when

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Ish, I've noticed that with some (Henry I, I believe), he had the illegitimate children first, with a woman he apparently cared about but could not marry; I think he chose names he liked, and then liked them again the second time around.

It's true that they couldn't use many/any royal names, but they may have to choose their references. I think that if in the meantime, there's been a more favored version of a monarch or use of the name (as with George), that helps.

Philip doesn't bring up any forceful connotations for me, for the British throne. It would be a good name. I think Charles and Diana likely chose William because they liked it, and it does sound modern.

I once thought that George sounded a bit archaic, but there are enough Georges in my life whom I admire that I have to say I rather like it.

Viscount James cannot be the new baby's first cousin once removed. First cousins are one's parents' siblings children. Harry has no children and I don't think any of Kate's sibs do either (don't know), but if one was named James, yes, that would be strange.

It's William's first cousin - so baby's second cousin, once removed, if it's the second cousin's child. Fairly distant.

I agree that once Charles is king, his own descendants (and Camilla's) and their families are likely to form the kernel of holiday events, etc.

 

[Argie]

I think he looks like an Alexander, but I don't think that Philip or Arthur would look odd on him either. George on the other hand ... but maybe that's just me thinking that George looks odd on any human being under the age of eighteen

Maybe I am biased, but I had a student George (11), years ago, and he was the smartest kid in the whole school. You know, the type: big teeth, round face, unruly chestnut hair, curios, full of personality. I think I came to like the name because of him. Came from a modest family with 5 children. He's now a medical physicist somewhere in Europe.

 

[crm2317]

It's not so much to do with the closeness of the blood line as age for me. To have two James' only 5 years apart running around Buckingham
palace/ Balmoral/ Sandringham is a bit much.


I think Alexander is a lovely name for him. Alex for short

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Maybe I am biased, but I had a student George (11), years ago, and he was the smartest kid in the whole school. You know, the type: big teeth, round face, unruly chestnut hair, curios, full of personality. I think I came to like the name because of him. Came from a modest family with 5 children. He's now a medical physicist somewhere in Europe.

I know that there are so many children named George and their names probably suit them very well, but I've never known a child named George (mainly because the average, Danish George (or Georg) is 60+), and I can't imagine it on a child. The mere idea of a little boy named George is off to me. It's absolutely ridiculous and I know it, especially because I think it sounds so good on an adult. I don't know, I'm just being difficult, I presume

 

[amaryllus]

to be fair ,you could say viscount severn is likely going to off to boarding school in a few years and only be home for school holidays and family stuff so they won't interact much for several years but still, in my opinion, each boy deserves his own name.

 

[cepe]

Do so many of you come from families where all the names are different?

William and Catherine rarely see James - Christmas and Trooping the Colour at the most. He's 5. Probably not at the front of their mind on a regular basis. Why should that stop them using James if they like and want it?

If everyone deserves their own name then we would have no repeats at all anywhere, ever. That doesn't happen.

We'd all be numbers.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

There's a fine line between being too archaic as a name (which Henry is too, in my opinion), and being too common (Alexander is very common and doesn't have the traditionalist aspect to it).

Maybe they'll totally break with tradition and name him something trendy (doubt it; even Prince Jack sounds over the top). Alexander is a sort of compromise name (traditional in other royal lines; sounds rather like the name of a future czar, but we'll all get over that). Alex is one of those now gender neutral names (lots of girls named Alex). That's fine too.

William might be Catherine's choice (she adores her husband). Lots of boys are named after their fathers. It's interesting that most people don't have a problem with there being two Williams in the same family celebration, as long as they aren't close in age.

Prince Michael is very conservative, even boring. Future King David would have to overcome a vast historical legacy to claim that name for his own, although David is a lovely name.

There are very few young Arthurs, either. I like the name a lot (it's my dad's name). My dad's family also had Archibald, John and Virgil.

I'd pick Virgil out of that batch, myself (and it is no more startling to tradition than Alexander).

I can sure see why this might take them a few days, even with a short list (my first husband and I never agreed on a boy's name...good thing we had two girls; even there it was very tough).

 

[Ish]

Ish, I've noticed that with some (Henry I, I believe), he had the illegitimate children first, with a woman he apparently cared about but could not marry; I think he chose names he liked, and then liked them again the second time around.

That makes sense. You see a lot of repetition of names on general, especially of family names. There's also the fact that infant mortality rate was higher, so names seemed to get reused more just because the previous holder was dead.

Viscount James cannot be the new baby's first cousin once removed. First cousins are one's parents' siblings children. Harry has no children and I don't think any of Kate's sibs do either (don't know), but if one was named James, yes, that would be strange.

It's William's first cousin - so baby's second cousin, once removed, if it's the second cousin's child. Fairly distant.

I've always understood (and the Internet seems to be backing me up here) is that your first cousin's child is your first cousin once removed - because you are one generation removed from being first cousins. William and James are first cousins, therefore Baby C and James are first cousins once removed.

I agree that once Charles is king, his own descendants (and Camilla's) and their families are likely to form the kernel of holiday events, etc.

This isn't a family that sees each other just at Thanksgiving and Christmas. We see the Kents and Gloucesters come out for a lot of the big stuff, so it reasons to follow that even when Charles is king the Wessexes will still be around fairly regularly.

There's also the fact that a lot of people seem to believe that William and Catherine are close enough with the Wessexes (or at least Sophie) to want to name her godmother. If that's true then the Cambridges are likely to be around the Wessexes a lot.

 

[Isabella]

to be fair ,you could say viscount severn is likely going to off to boarding school in a few years and only be home for school holidays and family stuff so they won't interact much for several years but still, in my opinion, each boy deserves his own name.

It's not like they're siblings. Unless they invent a name, the child is likely going to share a name with other people - perhaps even people in his own family.

 

[Osipi]

Don't ask my why but after actually seeing the newborn prince and hearing he's got a good set of lungs on him, I've already pictured him as a healthy, robust and self assured little person. For some reason the name "Bruce" came to mind.
Probably a very unlikely choice of a name, but that's what I felt.

Those qualities also reflect his great grandfather so I'm going to join the Philip as a first name camp.

My guess at a full name is Philip Charles Michael Henry.

If that happened, how sweet would it to be to have a formal portrait of The Duke of Edinburgh holding his great grandson and namesake.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

No, we don't all have different names in my family, especially if I consider the broader cousins (there are three of us with my name).

George Harrison would, I guess, be over 60 - but that's true of a lot of names (Henry, Edward). I wouldn't, personally, name my child George, though. I'm guessing a lot of us wouldn't. It's rare I have a Henry or an Edward in my classes, but I do see Jorge's and Eduardo's and Everardo's all the time. It's hard to know how the names sound to the ears of William and Catherine/Kate (since Kate goes by a nickname, she's probably very aware of the nickname thing).

Just name him William Jr and announce it!

 

[crm2317]

Prince Alexander Phillip Francis Louis.

 

[HRHHermione]

It's not like they're siblings. Unless they invent a name, the child is likely going to share a name with other people - perhaps even people in his own family.

Yup, plus there's only a very tiny pool of appropriate names. I'll be very surprised if it isn't James, George, Henry, Charles, Edward, Richard or Philip, with Philip only an option because of the DoE.

I think George, James or Philip are most likely, but I half hope they pull a Crown Princess Victoria and surprise us all.

 

[Argie]

Do so many of you come from families where all the names are different?

William and Catherine rarely see James - Christmas and Trooping the Colour at the most. He's 5. Probably not at the front of their mind on a regular basis. Why should that stop them using James if they like and want it?

If everyone deserves their own name then we would have no repeats at all anywhere, ever. That doesn't happen.

We'd all be numbers.

Not really, no: my husband is the 6th in line with the same first name (which he's not crazy about, as it is oldfashioned), but tradition is good. We broke the rule when naming our son, but he's got a traditional name as well. I think the royal baby HAS to be named after his royal ancestors, both for the sake of tradition and continuity, both very comforting and reassuring. With 4 names, he can choose himself the one he would rule under.

 

[amaryllus]

William and Catherine rarely see James - Christmas and Trooping the Colour at the most. He's 5. Probably not at the front of their mind on a regular basis. Why should that stop them using James if they like and want it?

I don't know, they were fond of and close enough to louise to have her in wedding. you don't do that for kids you are barely acquainted with; if they have that kind of relation with her, it goes to reason it might be same with her brother.

 

[crm2317]

Yup, plus there's only a very tiny pool of appropriate names. I'll be very surprised if it isn't James, George, Henry, Charles, Edward, Richard or Philip, with Philip only an option because of the DoE.

I think George, James or Philip are most likely, but I half hope they pull a Crown Princess Victoria and surprise us all.

I'd love them to pull a Crown Princess Victoria! A modern but not too whacky name would be wonderful. Alex, Isaac, Gabriel and Max are all lovely names.

 

[amaryllus]

Christopher, daniel or Tristan would work well also.

 

[NGalitzine]

My name is Nicholas. I have a 1st cousin who is 6 months younger than me who is also named Nicholas. We spent part of every summer together and went to the same boarding schools. Having the same first name never bothered either of us and I am sure both of us regarded Nicholas as "our own name". I see no problem with Prince X and Viscount Severn both being named James if that is what William and Catherine decide. Not a big deal at all,

 

[crm2317]

Christopher, daniel or Tristan would work well also.

Christopher is lovely. Matthew could also be lovely. He could use a middle name as his reigning name.

 

[amaryllus]

the issue becomes the other set of parents... what they wish should not be irrelevant because William wants something a certain way. i don't think e&s would care actually but still.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

I've always understood (and the Internet seems to be backing me up here) is that your first cousin's child is your first cousin once removed - because you are one generation removed from being first cousins. William and James are first cousins, therefore Baby C and James are first cousins once removed.

.

I have several reference works on English kinship terms (in both England and America) and I'm using Ward Goodenough's standard work here (so unless it's changed recently, I think he's correct - he did tons and tons of research; since I studied the subject in graduate school, I have a hard time just going to "the internet" for an answer).

If William is James's first cousin, then James is the baby's second cousin, no removals. Removal refers to going down one generation. So, my mother's first cousins are my second cousins. Their children are second cousins once removed. My own first cousins' children are my first cousins once removed and my first cousins' grandchildren are my first cousins twice removed. The first cousins of my grandmother are my third cousins. Their children are my third cousins, once removed. In this way, starting with the person who is using the terms (Ego in kinship terminology), we have an easy way of counting up the generations of our own lineal kin and then down the lineal generations of our non-lineal kin (cousins).

Anyway, that's what my books say and that's also how most people I know who are into genealogy use the terms.

Now, it's possible that American and British use of kin terms is diverging, but in the 1950's-1970's when the data I describe was collected (based on ethnomethod aka what folk experts such as genealogists were using), that was how it worked. This is also how my Aunt E. used the terms, and both of my grandmothers (one of part British descent, the other part Scottish).

Since I really did know my grandmothers' first cousins, these terms were relevant to me. Anyway, I'd be interested to know if other people's families really use these terms extensively and what actual research there is besides Goodenough and his many followers. It's true the work was criticized as being overly New England/England based...and it's possible there were already regional variations in place. Not sure how we establish authoritative use of terms in that case.


Back to naming: if Alexander is in the running, might not Peter and Paul also be? I do not think they'll name him John (or Timothy or Harold).

I do wonder how Charles and Diana finally settled on William as the first part of Prince William's name. Anyone know?

 

[Countessmeout]

Estelle was not a modern (laughing out loud at that) name chosen out of mid air. It honors a beloved family member Estelle Bernadotte.

Gabriel, Isaac, Max... Jimmy, Conrad, Darnell.....random names with no connection either to the couple or to the royal family. This is an heir to the throne, a future king, if not a royal name, I'd at least hope a family name.