Names for Second Royal Baby

[roddma]

What are some guess on names Kate and William will pick for the second baby? Diana, Mary, and Victoria is high on the girl's name list. I know they want to honor Diana, that is, if the Queen approves it. They may use Elizabeth , but I read the child cnanot bear the name of a current monarch. A boy will likely be something with Arthur(one of William's names) and/or Michael (Kate's dad). I doubt they will use James since that is Kate's brother's name.

[lilith]

I think Alexandra or Victoria for a girl, if they use Diana it will only be as a middle name, and probably not even that. Who would load all those cultural expectations and family dysfunction on an infant?

[louisa05]

I think Alexandra or Victoria for a girl, if they use Diana it will only be as a middle name, and probably not even that. Who would load all those cultural expectations and family dysfunction on an infant?

The more I read anything online about the British royal family, the more I see an absolutely unhinged group of Diana worshipers. Will & Kate are already having issues with a couple of photographers outright stalking Prince George. I don't even want to imagine what would happen to a baby "Princess Diana" and I don't think either of them is stupid enough to take that risk. They would need twice the security to protect that child from deranged members of the public.

For a girl, I think Alexandra, Charlotte or Mary. For a boy, I think we may see a less traditional name. There has been a tendency in the recent generations to not name children after living members of the close family (the last was the Queen who shares her mother's first name). All of the most traditional male names are taken: Charles, William, Henry, Edward, James. Because of this, I called George as the name for a first born boy correctly. It was the only one available. Like great uncle Prince Andrew, a second son might have a less traditional name. They are not fond of John (rumor is that Diana wanted it for Harry and Charles vetoed it). Arthur is a possibility. Spencer is not (in spite of Diana cultists insisting it would be George's name).

[happy atheist]

Did Diana have a viable middle name?

[Palimpsest]

Diana Frances Spencer. I have no idea how I remembered that.

I guess Kate is pregnant again. :wink-kitty:

[louisa05]

Did Diana have a viable middle name?

I think that Frances may show up as a middle name for a girl. A good way to honor her without getting the deranged crowd riled up or overly obsessed.

I honestly think that it may be just as well if both William and Harry only have sons. Not for their sake but for the sake of daughters not having to live with the shadow of a grandmother they never knew who somehow inspired a crowd of deranged followers devoted to her supposed martyrdom.

And if either has a daughter at any point and does not name her Diana (which I don't think they will), the poor Queen will be cursed up, down and sideways for "not allowing" it. The truth of that relationship is that both of them were difficult with the other. The Queen has the disadvantage of not having died young.

[Bethella]

They could use Frances but it isn't a traditional royal name.

I agree with Charlotte or Mary for a girl, although Caroline is another possibility especially with Kate's mother Carol. I think Alexandra is less likely because the male form was used for George's middle name.

For a boy I can see them maybe going with an older royal name like Albert or Alfred.

[louisa05]

They could use Frances but it isn't a traditional royal name.

I agree with Charlotte or Mary for a girl, although Caroline is another possibility especially with Kate's mother Carol. I think Alexandra is less likely because the male form was used for George's middle name.

For a boy I can see them maybe going with an older royal name like Albert or Alfred.

Forgot Caroline. That does appear in the family tree a time or two. Matilda does as well, centuries ago. That would be a traditional yet unpredictable choice. I also forgot Alice and Eleanor. I think those are possibilities as well. There are males named "Francis" here and there. There are also a few appearances for boys of Robert and Thomas, so those could be a possibility. Or they could go way back and choose Edmund or Edgar. Somehow I doubt they are going to go with Aethelred or Boadicea, though. And there is always Richard which hasn't been used for some time.

[nausicaa]

I think that Frances may show up as a middle name for a girl. A good way to honor her without getting the deranged crowd riled up or overly obsessed.

I honestly think that it may be just as well if both William and Harry only have sons. Not for their sake but for the sake of daughters not having to live with the shadow of a grandmother they never knew who somehow inspired a crowd of deranged followers devoted to her supposed martyrdom.

And if either has a daughter at any point and does not name her Diana (which I don't think they will), the poor Queen will be cursed up, down and sideways for "not allowing" it. The truth of that relationship is that both of them were difficult with the other. The Queen has the disadvantage of not having died young.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed the Diana cult and been scared of it. I remember when Kate was first pregnant with George and there was a possibility the baby's birthdate could be Diana's. I thought, please God don't let that child be a daughter... I think they'll have the sense to go with Charlotte, Victoria, or Alexandra as names for a daughter. Jane is nice too, and a not often used royal predecessor name. Arthur or Albert for a boy?

I also hope they only have sons. Our media has expanded so much in the past thirty years that I can't even imagine how a daughter could grow up and be anything close to normal with TMZ monitoring her weight, websites devoted to her clothing choices, and every phone hacking weirdo trying to get to any even slightly inappropriate private photos she might have stored somewhere.

[happy atheist]

Princess Frances is really sibilant when you put it together like that.

[ViolaSebastian]

I don't foresee them using Diana as a first name. I think being the second 'Princess Diana' would be too much of a difficulty to bear, with the rabid Diana fans out there--as well as the press, who seems to have forgotten what happened previously and are going after Prince George. It also seems to be inviting trouble, if that makes sense. As lovely, kind, and generous as Princess Diana was, she was undeniably deeply troubled. So, that said...I'm thinking:

Elizabeth Victoria Diana or Victoria Elizabeth Diana

And I'm thinking some combination of Albert and Phillip for a boy.

[louisa05]

I don't foresee them using Diana as a first name. I think being the second 'Princess Diana' would be too much of a difficulty to bear, with the rabid Diana fans out there--as well as the press, who seems to have forgotten what happened previously and are going after Prince George. It also seems to be inviting trouble, if that makes sense. As lovely, kind, and generous as Princess Diana was, she was undeniably deeply troubled. So, that said...I'm thinking:

Elizabeth Victoria Diana or Victoria Elizabeth Diana

And I'm thinking some combination of Albert and Phillip for a boy.

I highly doubt it will be Elizabeth or Victoria. Aside from the tendency to not repeat names of living family members as first names, the two great queens' names have been intentionally not repeated for anyone close in line to the throne. This child will be #4 at birth. The current Queen was not expected to inherit at the time of her birth and had it been expected, would likely have had a different first name. It was expected that her uncle would marry and produce direct heirs, not abdicate to her father. When her father became King, there was talk that her parents should try for a third child which would hopefully be a boy (to anyone's knowledge, they did not even try). And at least one advisor suggested to her on her father's death that she choose one of her middle names (Alexandra or Mary) to rule under. The fact that those are the Queen's middle names is the reason I think they are probably on the list for a girl. I also don't think we'll see the name Diana appear at all.

Incidentally, Victoria's first name was Alexandrina and she was usually called Princess Drina as a young child.

[Palimpsest]

Shit. I only know this stuff because I am a true anti-monarchist at heart and a history nerd.

The first name for a baby is unimportant for a future heir to the crown of the UK. They get to decide the name they will take when they take the throne.

Thus, David became Edward VIII (who then abdicated for)

Albert (Bertie). He turned into George VI.

Elizabeth choose to keep her original name and became Elizabeth II. One wonders why she wasn't Victoria II.

Queen Victoria (Drina) is rolling in her grave because she is on record as demanding that future generations called all girl babies Victoria. That request was ignored until either Beatrice or Eugenie who have Victoria as a second name. I forget.

Charles (as in the current Prince of Wales) once said that when he took the throne he would assume the name of George. He really loves "Farmer George" AKA George III. The one who had porphyria, lost the colonies of the USA, but was really comparatively benign and a nice guy as far as kings go. Unlike Charles, current POW, who is a spoiled entitled brat who fails to understand what a Constitutional Monarchy means. Butt out of politics, Charlie. I'm sorry, but you are an anachronistic rubber stamp and a tourist attraction. I am so sorry that you are trapped in that role.

So I'm going to recommend that the latest child is called Zorro Esperanto MacFinnagle (male) or Kayleigh Ladoona Mackynzee (female).

:P

[roddma]

It is annoying to be named after relatives especially both names like me. Living or dead, royalty or not, you walk in the shadows of that person. I mentioned it would be nice to change my my name once to my mother and she didn't like it. "You're named after so and so" blah blah blah. Tey had mentioned using Diana, but likely not for a first name. But iMO it is hard enough being royal without being named after a non-living relative.

[louisa05]

Shit. I only know this stuff because I am a true anti-monarchist at heart and a history nerd.

The first name for a baby is unimportant for a future heir to the crown of the UK. They get to decide the name they will take when they take the throne.

Thus, David became Edward VIII (who then abdicated for)

Albert (Bertie). He turned into George VI.

Elizabeth choose to keep her original name and became Elizabeth II. One wonders why she wasn't Victoria II.

Queen Victoria (Drina) is rolling in her grave because she is on record as demanding that future generations called all girl babies Victoria. That request was ignored until either Beatrice or Eugenie who have Victoria as a second name. I forget.

Charles (as in the current Prince of Wales) once said that when he took the throne he would assume the name of George. He really loves "Farmer George" AKA George III. The one who had porphyria, lost the colonies of the USA, but was really comparatively benign and a nice guy as far as kings go. Unlike Charles, current POW, who is a spoiled entitled brat who fails to understand what a Constitutional Monarchy means. Butt out of politics, Charlie. I'm sorry, but you are an anachronistic rubber stamp and a tourist attraction. I am so sorry that you are trapped in that role.

So I'm going to recommend that the latest child is called Zorro Esperanto MacFinnagle (male) or Kayleigh Ladoona Mackynzee (female).

:P

The name changing thing as monarch has not been very common--much more the exception than the rule and done when a second son took the throne. Edward VIII's full name was Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David. He was, indeed, called David by the family for his entire life, but Edward was his first name. George VI did rule with a different name, but it must be recognized that he was a second son thus his name was not as much of an issue at birth in terms of sounding kingly.

And while the internet insists Charles announced that he would rule under a different name, there is no evidence as such. This 2005 article from BBC cites Royal officials as calling the rumors about him using George as merely "speculation" and one told the BBC that the assumption has always been that he will rule as Charles. Link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/4557924.stm

As for Victoria, neither of her names was a suitably regnal name as far as they go. But there was also an assumption that one of her uncles would yet produce a legitimate male heir. She was called Victoria when she was a bit older and before becoming Queen--"Drina" was only used in early childhood. (If I remember the several bios I have read of her, that had to do with her parents--and after her father's death, her mother, also Victoria, got her way about the name). Her decree about names was not that all daughters be called Victoria but rather that the firstborn ones of each generation be called that and firstborn males were to be called Albert. Her many descendants immediately ignored it as soon as she died and some ignored it prior (particularly those married into other royal families with their own traditions and demands). Had it been adhered to, Anne's children would have got those names, but not all of the Queen's grandchildren.

[lilith]

The name changing thing as monarch has not been very common--much more the exception than the rule and done when a second son took the throne. Edward VIII's full name was Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David. He was, indeed, called David by the family for his entire life, but Edward was his first name. George VI did rule with a different name, but it must be recognized that he was a second son thus his name was not as much of an issue at birth in terms of sounding kingly.

And while the internet insists Charles announced that he would rule under a different name, there is no evidence as such. This 2005 article from BBC cites Royal officials as calling the rumors about him using George as merely "speculation" and one told the BBC that the assumption has always been that he will rule as Charles. Link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/4557924.stm

Charles is a name with a very mixed and not particularly reputable history for British monarchs. Charles III would be an odd choice.

[louisa05]

Charles is a name with a very mixed and not particularly reputable history for British monarchs. Charles III would be an odd choice.

In an age when internet searches make Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, remain "Kate Middleton" in most media, and for a monarch who has been the first heir to the throne for the majority of his life (the longest duration in history), a complete name change is not likely to stick, either. I would be surprised, honestly. And, not because I am in the Cult of Diana that demands he never take the throne, but if his mother lives as long as her mother did...it may not matter. She may survive him.

[lilith]

In an age when internet searches make Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, remain "Kate Middleton" in most media, and for a monarch who has been the first heir to the throne for the majority of his life (the longest duration in history), a complete name change is not likely to stick, either. I would be surprised, honestly. And, not because I am in the Cult of Diana that demands he never take the throne, but if his mother lives as long as her mother did...it may not matter. She may survive him.

Yes, it's entirely possible Charles, if still alive, won't retain the physical or mental capacity to take the throne by the time Queen Elizabeth either dies or abdicates due to health issues (I don't think the Queen Mother could have acted as reigning monarch for the last 5 years or so of her life, she was too frail). Which is kind of sad, as he's spent his whole life waiting to become king.

Either way William will probably ascend the throne before he's 50, which is no bad thing in my opinion - not cause I dislike Charles, just cause I think it would be good to have a younger monarch on the throne after Elizabeth spending her final years on the throne and Charles inheriting at an advanced age.

[Cheetah]

I think they should call him Prince Jim Bob.

[crazyforkate]

A Girl, named Lauren Cooper. Though I'm sure the Queen would be quite bovvered.

[roddma]

I don't think Jim Bob would fly. It would be James Robert. Kate's brother is James.

[anjulibai]

The Queen already has a grandson named James (Prince Edward's son), so I don't think they'll use James.

I also don't think they'll use Albert. George was in honor of George VI, who's first name had been Albert - I don't think they'd name both son's after one person.

I could see them picking Richard or Robert, which are both of long-standing Royal use. Robert would be a good one, since it was a popular name for Scottish monarchs before the union.

Girls' names, I could see Alexandra or Charlotte or Caroline. Mary seems too simple for them.

[lilith]

The Queen already has a grandson named James (Prince Edward's son), so I don't think they'll use James.

I also don't think they'll use Albert. George was in honor of George VI, who's first name had been Albert - I don't think they'd name both son's after one person.

I could see them picking Richard or Robert, which are both of long-standing Royal use. Robert would be a good one, since it was a popular name for Scottish monarchs before the union.

Girls' names, I could see Alexandra or Charlotte or Caroline. Mary seems too simple for them.

The last royal Caroline (estranged wife of George IV) was a disaster.

I know I keep bringing up the histories of prior royals, but if I'm aware of the connotations of certain names they most certainly are.

[anjulibai]

The last royal Caroline (estranged wife of George IV) was a disaster.

I know I keep bringing up the histories of prior royals, but if I'm aware of the connotations of certain names they most certainly are.

True, but Elizabeth and Philip did pick Charles and Edward, both names having predecessors with not so great reputations. Heck, they used Edward twice - Edward is one of Andrew's middle names.

I think the criteria is more "This name has been used before" and "We like it", more than anything else.

[lilith]

True, but Elizabeth and Philip did pick Charles and Edward, both names having predecessors with not so great reputations. Heck, they used Edward twice - Edward is one of Andrew's middle names.

I think the criteria is more "This name has been used before" and "We like it", more than anything else.

I've always been surprised by the naming of the heir Charles. Edward not so much - I don't think the Kings Edward hold bad connotations for most of the commonwealth.

Is it really tradition to only use names of past royals though, or just something that's been assumed cause the royals tend to be conservative and use traditional family names? And does it only apply to the direct line? Cause Zara (daughter of Princess Anne) certainly isn't a traditional royal name. And does it have to be the name of a member of the British royal family, or can they use the names of Queen Victoria's grandchildren and great grandchildren who were born into other royal houses?