Baby Cambridge: Potential Names and Godparents

[Countessmeout]

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?[/QUOTE]

It is said was

1. name not in current use in the immediate family
2. named in honor of Prince William of Gloucester, the queen's cousin

 

[kakieanne]

My guess is that William is going to surprise everyone. He is a traditionalist, but he is also very much his own man.

I remember hearing years ago (don't know whether it is true or not) that Charles and HM did not want the name William, but Diana insisted upon it.

 

[crm2317]

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.

I wasn't aware that Victoria and Estelle Bernadotte were close. At the time did her son not say that he was touched that Estelle shared the name of his mother but that he wasn't sure if they'd met?

 

[Lady Ann]

I heard Diana wanted John after her father but was told NO because of the names history. William was Diana's second choice...I don't remember where I read this.

 

[amaryllus]

I so hope he does not do George or alexander or really any name people are betting on...I want a surprise ! Alfred would be cool... you can't get more royal than that!

 

[cmbruno]

Since both William and Catherine studied in Scotland, I think a name of one of the Kings of Scotland might be chosen. Maybe David, Robert, Malcolm, Alexander or Duncan.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Since both William and Catherine studied in Scotland, I think a name of one of the Kings of Scotland might be chosen. Maybe David, Robert, Malcolm, Alexander or Duncan.

Or Andrew, as in the patron saint of Scotland.

 

[Ish]

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?

Okay, so I didn't entirely follow all of what you've said here (I haven't studied this as much as you have, but I do find it interesting).

In addition to what I found when I googled "first cousins once removed" and what I found when I googled "Ward Goodenough kinship cousins" (the results of which were confusing and didn't seem to reference him), I also looked up first cousins on the Oxford English Dictionary, which throughout my schooling I've found to be kind of a big deal.

first, second cousin, etc.: expressing the relationship of persons descended the same number of steps in distinct lines from a common ancestor. Thus the children of brothers or sisters are first cousins to each other; the children of first cousins are second cousins to each other; and so on. The term second cousin is also loosely applied to the son or daughter of a first cousin, more exactly called a (first) cousin once removed.

I'm wondering if your definition of cousins is based on a more technical one, while mine is more of a layman's definition.

 

[Countessmeout]

I wasn't aware that Victoria and Estelle Bernadotte were close. At the time did her son not say that he was touched that Estelle shared the name of his mother but that he wasn't sure if they'd met?

Whether Victoria knew her personally, doesn't really matter. She was a loved member of the family, and extremely well respected and remembered for her charity work. It has been said, Victoria had admiration for the woman. It's no different than naming a child for a great-grandparent or someone you may never have met, like William using George for instance.

The point is, though not 'royal' it is a family name, not some random modern name chosen

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Hmm. I think the view expressed by Oxford allow of both perspectives (and the Wikipedia article forgets that kinship isn't always looked at from a lineal and outside perspective). But, we all seem to be agreed in first cousins - and once removed. James and William are first cousins, that's for sure. What James is, from Baby's perspective, seems not to be clear either from Oxford or Wikipedia's article.

My definition (and Goodenough's work) was based on interviewing people (all of whom were born around 1880-1920). They agreed with each other, but that doesn't mean that all people use the terms the same way.

What is clear though, is that James and William share the same grandparents, which is the definition of a first cousin. It gets tricky, when seen from William's perspective (for example) or Baby's perspective. Goodenough's informants had a system worked out that clearly delineated relationships without having to count grandparental generations (unlike Wikipedia's, whose system could result in different terms depending on which person in the chart is being talked about).

I think Goodenough was indeed trying to work out a watertight system (and that's why he's been criticized).

Since people seem to be mainly objected to James because of the close age of the two individuals in the story, I'm guessing "Andrew" would be okay (but what a strange choice, given the other circumstances).

If they could live with Philip, I'm sure everyone else will be happy with that. They both like pleasing others, they probably won't regret it. I like Alistair better than Alexander - is there someone in the family who is named Alexander that they've be referring to?
I'd choose Alistair William Philip Arthur if it were me...but it's not me!

 

[Isabella]

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?

According to the terminology as I've always known it (and I just double-checked this with a relative who is well-versed in such things), then James is Baby Cambridge's first cousin, once removed (unless such things don't reverse, and Baby Cambridge is only James's first cousin, once removed, since William and James are first cousins). Someone on this forum once informed me that term and concept of "once-removed" is not used in the UK, but only in the US. I have no idea if that is true, especially as I have heard British people use the "once-removed" term, and of course all these things can easily lead to confusion (including, perhaps, this post, as it's getting toward my bedtime and I'm starting to lose the power to properly articulate such things, lol).

 

[Ish]

Hmm. I think the view expressed by Oxford allow of both perspectives (and the Wikipedia article forgets that kinship isn't always looked at from a lineal and outside perspective). But, we all seem to be agreed in first cousins - and once removed. James and William are first cousins, that's for sure. What James is, from Baby's perspective, seems not to be clear either from Oxford or Wikipedia's article.

My definition (and Goodenough's work) was based on interviewing people (all of whom were born around 1880-1920). They agreed with each other, but that doesn't mean that all people use the terms the same way.

What is clear though, is that James and William share the same grandparents, which is the definition of a first cousin. It gets tricky, when seen from William's perspective (for example) or Baby's perspective. Goodenough's informants had a system worked out that clearly delineated relationships without having to count grandparental generations (unlike Wikipedia's, whose system could result in different terms depending on which person in the chart is being talked about).

I think Goodenough was indeed trying to work out a watertight system (and that's why he's been criticized).

Since people seem to be mainly objected to James because of the close age of the two individuals in the story, I'm guessing "Andrew" would be okay (but what a strange choice, given the other circumstances).

If they could live with Philip, I'm sure everyone else will be happy with that. They both like pleasing others, they probably won't regret it. I like Alistair better than Alexander - is there someone in the family who is named Alexander that they've be referring to?
I'd choose Alistair William Philip Arthur if it were me...but it's not me!

I think we're in agreement regarding cousins now.

Alexander would be the "preferred" name because it's it's a Scottish monarchical name. Baby C would be (eventually) Alexander IV, I believe.

 

[abcdxyz]

Alexander would be the "preferred" name because it's it's a Scottish monarchical name. Baby C would be (eventually) Alexander IV, I believe.

I'm not sure about that. James VI of Scotland became James I of England when he succeeded Elizabeth I. Wouldn't an Alexander (if he chose to reign with that name) be Alexander (I) of the United Kingdom?

 

[Ish]

I'm not sure about that. James VI of Scotland became James I of England when he succeeded Elizabeth I. Wouldn't an Alexander (if he chose to reign with that name) be Alexander (I) of the United Kingdom?

James was James VI and I, his son was II and VII.

At some point during HM's reign it was determined that the monarch would go by whichever count is higher.

As for the whole "choosing to reign under a different name" within British history it's only happened 4 times - Robert II, Victoria, Edward VII, and George VI. In the case of Victoria it was to go by the name she'd used throughout her life, instead of her full name, Edward dropped one of his two given names, George came to reign under very special circumstances, and Robert didn't want to be associated with John Balliol. Every other monarch has used their first given name.

 

[NGalitzine]

^.^^^^
No, because there is now an agreement to use the highest regnal number of either the Scottish or English kings.

 

[Countessmeout]

James was James VI and I, his son was II and VII.

At some point during HM's reign it was determined that the monarch would go by whichever count is higher.

As for the whole "choosing to reign under a different name" within British history it's only happened 4 times - Robert II, Victoria, Edward VII, and George VI. In the case of Victoria it was to go by the name she'd used throughout her life, instead of her full name, Edward dropped one of his two given names, George came to reign under very special circumstances, and Robert didn't want to be associated with John Balliol. Every other monarch has used their first given name.

It was officially proposed by Winstron Churchill, but had been in practice since the act of Settlement, when the two thrones became one, that a monarch would rule by the higher number. It had raised some controvercy over both Edward and Elizabeth though.

 

[Isabella E.]

Hmm. I think the view expressed by Oxford allow of both perspectives (and the Wikipedia article forgets that kinship isn't always looked at from a lineal and outside perspective). But, we all seem to be agreed in first cousins - and once removed. James and William are first cousins, that's for sure. What James is, from Baby's perspective, seems not to be clear either from Oxford or Wikipedia's article.

My definition (and Goodenough's work) was based on interviewing people (all of whom were born around 1880-1920). They agreed with each other, but that doesn't mean that all people use the terms the same way.

What is clear though, is that James and William share the same grandparents, which is the definition of a first cousin. It gets tricky, when seen from William's perspective (for example) or Baby's perspective. Goodenough's informants had a system worked out that clearly delineated relationships without having to count grandparental generations (unlike Wikipedia's, whose system could result in different terms depending on which person in the chart is being talked about).

I think Goodenough was indeed trying to work out a watertight system (and that's why he's been criticized).

Since people seem to be mainly objected to James because of the close age of the two individuals in the story, I'm guessing "Andrew" would be okay (but what a strange choice, given the other circumstances).

If they could live with Philip, I'm sure everyone else will be happy with that. They both like pleasing others, they probably won't regret it. I like Alistair better than Alexander - is there someone in the family who is named Alexander that they've be referring to?
I'd choose Alistair William Philip Arthur if it were me...but it's not me!

The Queen's second name is Alexandra, so they could choose the masculine form to both honor her and give him his own unique name. Of course, they should honor the grandfathers and great grandfather by using names given to them. How about Alexander Michael Philip George? Or Alexander George Philip Michael? These names should satisfy everyone,

 

[PrincessKaimi]

According to the terminology as I've always known it (and I just double-checked this with a relative who is well-versed in such things), then James is Baby Cambridge's first cousin, once removed (unless such things don't reverse, and Baby Cambridge is only James's first cousin, once removed, since William and James are first cousins). Someone on this forum once informed me that term and concept of "once-removed" is not used in the UK, but only in the US. I have no idea if that is true, especially as I have heard British people use the "once-removed" term, and of course all these things can easily lead to confusion (including, perhaps, this post, as it's getting toward my bedtime and I'm starting to lose the power to properly articulate such things, lol).

Things must be reciprocal (all family members must have a term to call other family members, that's just how it works). So, it's possible (and Wikipedia seems to endorse this, although on the discussion page, many people disagree - so maybe no universal agreement?) Definitely, Baby is James's first cousin once removed (according to my family members, you, Goodenough, we're all agreeing on that).

But, according to my sources, James is Baby's second cousin. I think I've got that right. At any rate, Baby and James are not first cousins.

I always thought it was fun to run into people with my name, I doubt either kid would have a hard time of it (and Baby's second cousin James might even be honored by it - I would be).

 

[sobriquet]

Isabella is right, Viscount Severn and the new baby are first cousins, once removed. Second cousins are those who share great-grandparents (like William and Arthur Chatto).

I don't think it would be a big deal if they named the baby James. Lots of families have more than one member with the same name, and I don't think many people would confuse Prince James of Cambridge with James, Viscount Severn.

 

[monarchist-us]

Christopher, daniel or Tristan would work well also.

I like Christopher, I think that's a nice classic "new-to-the-BRF" yet still royal sounding (Kings Christopher I-III of Denmark, quite a few royals throughout history with that name, etc.) name. Daniel is okay but Tristan is kind of....eh. Too trendy sounding.

Other nice, new-to-the-BRF but still royal sounding names:

- Anthony (King Anthony of Saxony, numerous princes of other countries)
- Nicholas
- Joseph
- Peter
- Paul

Previously used in the BRF non-monarchial names that I like:
- Frederick
- Victor
- Alfred

A lot of trendier suggested names like Joshua, Gabriel, etc. are a bit too overtly biblical in nature for the BRF IMO.

I think any talk of the baby (or anyone else) using a name other than his first is silly talk. Sure, he can. But as has been said, it's done rarely and under very unique circumstances.

All of that being said, there's probably a 95% chance that the Cambridges pick a previous name used for a British monarch, a 4% chance that they use a name previously used by a non-monarch in the BRF, and a 1% chance that they use a name entirely new to the family.

 

[monarchist-us]

Isabella is right, Viscount Severn and the new baby are first cousins, once removed. Second cousins are those who share great-grandparents (like William and Arthur Chatto).

I don't think it would be a big deal if they named the baby James, lots of families have more than one member with the same name, and I don't think many people would confuse Prince James of Cambridge with James, Viscount Severn.

I just don't see James happening, even though it's a popular suggestion. Even if James is not a particularly close relation, he's still a close-in-age descendant of Elizabeth II, and I just don't see them duplicating it along the same lines as Charles, Henry, Richard, Edward, etc. may be.

I also don't see names with a particularly Scottish connotation (like James, Robert, David, etc.) being used for some reason. Just a hunch.

 

[Meadow]

I just hope we don't have to wait too long. Phillip would be great and I really hope the DofE feels well enough soon so he can meet his first Great Grandson. If he get's James wont his nickname be Jamie? I like Richard but I hate the nickname Dick which is sure to be used by certain tabloids. I have a feeling they may surprise us.

 

[Octoberdana]

Frederick is nice and has a royal but fresh ring to it.

 

[Ish]

I just hope we don't have to wait too long. Phillip would be great and I really hope the DofE feels well enough soon so he can meet his first Great Grandson. If he get's James wont his nickname be Jamie? I like Richard but I hate the nickname Dick which is sure to be used by certain tabloids. I have a feeling they may surprise us.

He might not have a nickname in the family, not everyone does. William doesn't seem to commonly go by anything other than William, nor does most of his (paternal) family. Catherine may sometimes go by Kate, and her sister goes by Pippa, but it seems like her brother goes by James.

 

[Countessmeout]

I like Christopher, I think that's a nice classic "new-to-the-BRF" yet still royal sounding (Kings Christopher I-III of Denmark, quite a few royals throughout history with that name, etc.) name. Daniel is okay but Tristan is kind of....eh. Too trendy sounding.

Other nice, new-to-the-BRF but still royal sounding names:

- Anthony (King Anthony of Saxony, numerous princes of other countries)
- Nicholas
- Joseph
- Peter
- Paul

Previously used in the BRF non-monarchial names that I like:
- Frederick
- Victor
- Alfred

A lot of trendier suggested names like Joshua, Gabriel, etc. are a bit too overtly biblical in nature for the BRF IMO.

I think any talk of the baby (or anyone else) using a name other than his first is silly talk. Sure, he can. But as has been said, it's done rarely and under very unique circumstances.

All of that being said, there's probably a 95% chance that the Cambridges pick a previous name used for a British monarch, a 4% chance that they use a name previously used by a non-monarch in the BRF, and a 1% chance that they use a name entirely new to the family.

Anthony Armstrong-Jones
Lord Nicholas Windsor
Peter Philipps

Joseph (husband of Mary) and Paul are not too biblical? Far more recognizably biblical than something like Joshua for many.

 

[amaryllus]

Edmond or Owen is very nice.

 

[sobriquet]

I always forget about Kate's brother, James. I don't think they'll name the baby James even though it's my personal favorite of the likely possibilities.

 

[monarchist-us]

Anthony Armstrong-Jones
Lord Nicholas Windsor
Peter Philipps

Joseph (husband of Mary) and Paul are not too biblical? Far more recognizably biblical than something like Joshua for many.

I guess I should have meant used in the actual BRF and not by extended family members (None of those people have ever been members of the BRF IIRC).

Joseph and Paul have been consistently popular in Christian countries for the better part of a millennium. Names like Gabriel, Elijah, Joshua, or whatever have only become common in the 90's and 2000's and are the kind of "trendy" previously little-used Biblical names that seemed to become popular among middle-class suburban Americans in recent decades. I get that other royal families have used names like Gabriel, but I think they're allowed much more leeway to be trendier, especially for non-heirs.

In the UK, Joshua only became popular post 1970, Gabriel has never been popular, Elijah only recently popular. Joseph has never dipped below 60 in the past 100+ years.

Popular baby names - Top 100 baby names UK | BabyNames.co.uk

 

[amaryllus]

In the other royal families, the heirs all but one have a suitable, staid traditional name and the parents had fun with the other children's names and were creative. Kate and William should follow suit.

 

[EllieCat]

There's the two Edwards, but they almost 30 years between them

There are three: Edward, Lord Downpatrick, born 1988; grandson of Duke of Kent.

So if the new baby is named James, there would be four James: James Ogilivy, James Severn, James Middleton, and Prince James of Cambridge.