Future Royal Baby Names

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Im wondering the same thing. Someone needs to make a law to stop giving your children so many darn names. It doesn't make you look important, it just makes your child look ridiculous. It's like the royal equivalent of naming your kid Apple.

 

[Mirabel]

I can't imagine what name William and Kate could give a baby boy; all the royal names are in use!

Except for John and that is considered unlucky.
But Henry, Charles, William, George, Richard, Edward. are in use.

I thought James would be the best choice, but Edward took that for his own son. I guess it could be used again, but I don't know if that's a good idea.

The only kingly name I can think of that somebody isn't already using is Stephen, but he was considered something of a usurper.

 

[Meraude]

I can't imagine what name William and Kate could give a baby boy; all the royal names are in use!

Well, there is always Albert And remember thatfd Edward VIII was known as David in the family, so the child doesn't have to be called by his given future regal name.

 

[Sancia]

Well, there is always Albert And remember thatfd Edward VIII was known as David in the family, so the child doesn't have to be called by his given future regal name.

There is already a little Albert in the young of the Windsor family, a grand-son of the dukes of Kent.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

Albert is too old fashioned anyway, and as for Stephen, it doesn't go well with Prince IMHO (I can't say it without lisping ) I think it would be a great idea to have one of the King names as a second/third/fourth name, so that it can be used as a regnal name, but it would be so boring to have another Prince George or Prince Richard. What about Prince Benjamin or Prince Martin? I feel the same way about the girl names. The Queen names would be wonderful as second/third/fourth names, but another Princess Victoria or Princess Alexandra would just be I'm hoping for Princess Lydia or Princess Rachel instead

 

[Renata4711]

I have a feeling that several of these would be frowned upon, but it would be nice if the "names pool" were to be refreshed !

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

Why do you think they would be frowned upon? I'm not attacking you, I'm just interested.

 

[Molly2101]

'Arthur' is simply a very old-fashioned, dreadful moniker to give a child these days. How many children are named 'Arthur' these days - or how many boys in kindergarten have that particular name?
It would although complement HRH the Earl of Wessex's daughter, HRH Lady Louise Windsor. Very few baby girls are named such any more. She is a very beautiful little girl indeed!

Why does HRH the Lady Louise Windsor have the last name 'Windsor,' instead of 'Mountbatten- Windsor?'

Her full title is Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, and was used as such for the Royal Wedding Order of Service. I think, for simplicity, Lady Louise Windsor is used.

I think it would be good if the Royal family introduced new names to the lineage, though nothing too "modern".

 

[ladongas]

As I recall, there was some discussion (don't ask me who!), that Diana would be an unsuitable name for a Queen, and that should she have become Queen, she would be known as Queen Frances (her middle name).
So perhaps Frances would be one of the choices considered for a girl's name. And for a boy, perhaps something like Peregrine or Bertram - just kidding.

 

[Mirabel]

There is already a little Albert in the young of the Windsor family, a grand-son of the dukes of Kent.

Anyway, Albert isn't a kingly name; there has never been a King Albert! The kingly names are: William, Henry, Edward, John, Charles, James, George, Richard, Stephen. I think that's it!

 

[Meadow]

Stephen? I don't think that is very kingly I have a brother called that not very regal sounding to me. Richard, George, James, William, Edward and Charles. John is so common and Henry makes me think of King Henry the VIII. I think William and Catherine will stick to tradition but Harry may be a little different.

 

[AnnaNotherThing]

'Arthur' is simply a very old-fashioned, dreadful moniker to give a child these days. How many children are named 'Arthur' these days - or how many boys in kindergarten have that particular name?
It would although complement HRH the Earl of Wessex's daughter, HRH Lady Louise Windsor.

I have a son called Arthur (he is 5 years old)...we love the name and as for how many kids in kindergarten share his name...well, ZERO, just the way we like it! I would hate my kids to be lost in the sea of mediocrity that is 'modern' naming...Using 'unique' names that everyone else has just doesn't wash with me...

 

[Meraude]

Anyway, Albert isn't a kingly name; there has never been a King Albert! The kingly names are: William, Henry, Edward, John, Charles, James, George, Richard, Stephen. I think that's it!

There are more kingly names than these, for example: Alfred, Edmund, Edgar, Harold, and all those names in house of Wessex.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Queen Frances, good gawd that is horrible. Who in their right mind would want a Queen Frances.
I agree that Arthur is too much of an old fashioned name to use today, and hopefully any British Royal male who has that name will get over the legend of Camelot and not use it if he becomes king.
Stephan was the name of a king of England, and despite the fact that it is a great name; I don't think King Stephan has a history that people want to be brought up.

 

[AnnaNotherThing]

I really don't think the first given name (as part of a royal combo) has to be the 'monarch's' name...look at King George VI, he wasn't born a George, he was known as Bertie (from Albert)...his full name was Albert Frederick Arthur George...So my point is if William and Catherine decide they want to name their daughter Diana or their son Arthur, he/she may not choose to take the throne under that name especially if their full names are something like - Diana Charlotte Alexandra Elizabeth or Queen Elizabeth III; Arthur Charles Henry William or King Charles ? - I guess that is one of the reason royals are given so many name, so they have options...and maybe a name for childhood and a name to rule under....

 

[Daria_S]

There are more kingly names than these, for example: Alfred, Edmund, Edgar, Harold, and all those names in house of Wessex.

Edmund would be a nice change.

 

[Renata4711]

How about King Edmund the Just ?

 

[Mirabel]

There are more kingly names than these, for example: Alfred, Edmund, Edgar, Harold, and all those names in house of Wessex.

But I don't think the RF goes back to the time before William the Conqueror when choosing names. And I think there's only about ten choices and they are all in use...except Stephen and John.

Maybe they could use Henry and call the child Henry instead of Harry?

The Queen should never have let Edward take James; not like his son will ascend the throne, and he could have picked anything.

 

[Sancia]

I have a son called Arthur (he is 5 years old)...we love the name and as for how many kids in kindergarten share his name...well, ZERO, just the way we like it! I would hate my kids to be lost in the sea of mediocrity that is 'modern' naming...Using 'unique' names that everyone else has just doesn't wash with me...

I thought Arthur was a very common name these days in Europa. It is the eight most given boyish name in France and it is in the top 20 in Swiss and Belgium.

 

[Meraude]

But I don't think the RF goes back to the time before William the Conqueror when choosing names. And I think there's only about ten choices and they are all in use...except Stephen and John.

Well, there are a few Scottish kingly names, Robert, David and Alexander.

 

[Molly2101]

The Queen should never have let Edward take James; not like his son will ascend the throne, and he could have picked anything.

Prnce William could still call his child James. There are two current Prince Edward's (Duke of Kent and Earl of Wessex) in the Royal family, neither of which will ever be Monarch, so why not have two James'. William could also give the middle name of James to his son and then he could use this middle name when he ascends to the throne, like David and Bertie did (King Edward VIII and King George VI respectively.)

I personally think a new name should be used for their son. It gets a bit boring having the same names used. I like the sound of King Alexander...

 

[ladongas]

But I don't think the RF goes back to the time before William the Conqueror when choosing names. (snip)

So you're telling me there is no chance he'll be named Ethelred?

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Im still hoping for a Stephan. And James is definitely better than the boring stuff that is currently used: Charles, Philip, Henry etc. Only good one in the bunch is Andrew.

 

[Mirabel]

Im still hoping for a Stephan. And James is definitely better than the boring stuff that is currently used: Charles, Philip, Henry etc. Only good one in the bunch is Andrew.

I'm with you!

Except for Andrew, which isn't a traditional kingly name; Prince Andrew was named for his paternal grandfather, Prince Andrew of Greece.

But I really like King Stephen.

I think James would be best, because it is a kingly name for both- England and Scotland! (Whatever happens, I hope they don't go with George again! I hate that).

 

[Mia_mae]

I don't have a problem with Arthur or George, but Alexander would be a perfect selection.
Actually I'm thinking Alexandra is even better. After 2 boys, I'd prefer if a girl came next

I also think Henry it's great (and much better than Harry), so they could named and call the baby that.

 

[Mirabel]

I don't have a problem with Arthur or George, but Alexander would be a perfect selection.

But what happens if Scotland goes it's own way, as is rumored might happen?
Then the poor baby would be stuck with a Scottish kingly name for a country he wouldn't even reign over.

 

[FasterB]

Isn´t King Stephen a hungarian king?

 

[wanderingnana]

Isn´t King Stephen a hungarian king?

Yes, but between Henry I and Henry II, England had a King Stephen. He was a disaster

 

[vittoria]

There was a King Stephen in England, but his right to the throne was disputed by his cousin Matilda, the only surviving legitimate child of Henry I, who named her as his heir. Too many people were not ready for a female monarch, and they threw their support to Stephen, Henry's nephew. The result was a messy civil war, eventually resolved by Stephen's naming Matilda's son his heir. The son became Henry II.

So, the name Stephen has some negative associations in the history of the UK monarchy, but then, so do some other royal names currently in use.

 

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi,

I'd go with Geoffrey and Eleanor - royal names but not used lately.

Larry