Royal Baby is a Boy

[tabitha2]

It’s for Lord Louis Mountbatten who was a Father figure and Mentor to Charles. He was Murdered By an IRA bomb.

[Loveday]

Count me in the 'well, that was an unexpected name' group. I don't dislike any of the three, though; he hasn't been saddled with anything that will cause him grief at boarding school, at least! 

I've heard Louis pronounced both ways in the US. 

[anjulibai]

1 minute ago, LilMissMetaphor said:

Louis, for an English royal? Really?

Ok then.

It's been used a few times, going way back. George I was actually George Louis or Georg Ludwig. George III father was Frederick Louis/Lewis or Friedrich Ludwig.

Then Victoria's daughter Alice married a Louis/Ludwig. Their son was Ernest Louis/Ernst Ludwig. Her younger son had Louis as a middle name. 

Then Princess Helena used the Louis as a middle name for one of her sons. So did Princess Beatrice, who married one of the Battenburg brothers, Henry.

Henry's brother was Louis, who married Queen Victoria's granddaughter and Alice's daughter, Victoria. Their son was Louis Mounbatten and their daughter was Alice, Philip's mother. 

So, Louis has a lot of family history, it's just not been that prominent. 

[singsingsing]

So glad it’s not Albert!

I still don’t get reusing one of your other kids’ middle names as a first name, but meh, it’s not like it actually matters (more of a pet peeve on my part). And actually it’s kind of cute to have that link between the brothers.

Louis isn’t my favourite name in the world but it’s already growing on me. ‘Prince Louis’ is pretty adorable - but it’s also a name that works well for an adult. All in all, I’m a fan.

[anjulibai]

Because I'm bored, I just want to point out how Philip and Elizabeth are primarily related:

Queen Victoria -> Edward VII -> George V -> George VI -> Elizabeth II
|
Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse and by Rhine
|
Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine
|
Alice of Battenberg and Louis of Battenberg/Louis Mountbatten
|
Philip

 

Christian IX of Denmark -> Queen Alexandra -> George V -> George VI -> Elizabeth II
|
George I of Greece
|
Andrew of Greece and Denmark
|
Philip

[JordynDarby5]

I got two out of three right! I'm surprised by the Louis being a first name since its usually a middle name and it was already used as one of their older son's names. Its not like they have several sons and have used up all the names. Other then that I'm not really sure how I feel about Louis. I'm sure it'll grow on me.   

[Mavis]

I don't even know why I'm feeling so sorry for myself about this, as I'm a republican, anyway (not the Trump kind, obvs). 

BUT I really wanted an Alice, and when I couldn't have an Alice, I wanted Prince Arthur or Prince Fred (erick). 

Now I'm going to have to convince someone else to call something Alice, although a friend of mine has already obliged me by having an Arthur (not from any convincing on my part-- that's just what her son happens to be called). 

Does anyone happen to remember the odds on Louis? Someone must have won a huge payout. 

[TheOneAndOnly]

Now I'm going to have Brother Louie by Hot Chocolate playing in my head all day.

[front hugs > duggs]

Like @VelociRapture , I am from the Northeast US. Unlike VelociRapture, I have heard Louis pronounced Lew-is my entire life.

Is my life a lie!?!? 

 

So is the Louis in One Direction actually Loo-eee also? This is going to take a while to reprogram my brain....

[Palimpsest]

21 minutes ago, Mavis said:

Does anyone happen to remember the odds on Louis? Someone must have won a huge payout. 

It's from the Metro, but still:

Quote

For weeks before the Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to her second son, Arthur had been favourite with the bookmakers to be the name of the latest royal. Other contenders were the likes of James and Philip which were attracting some attention, but Arthur was holding firm. Then came a flurry of cash on Alexander, which became favourite in the market on Thursday, before everyone was convinced it would be Albert, as that went odds-on on Friday morning.  At no point was Louis considered one of the favourites even on the morning of the announcement, the name had slid to extremely long odds indeed. Betfair spokesperson Katie Baylis confirmed: ‘At 6am this morning (Friday) the name Louis was at 120/1, so a ten pound bet at that time would have netted you £1200. ‘Those odds kept shortening throughout the morning and by 9am Louis was at 60/1, at 10.30am 30/1 and just 15 minutes later was at 9/1. By 11am when the name was announced it was as short as 1/100 and we had had 12k bet on Louis this morning alone.’ Louis may not have been backed by many, but those who did were laughing all the way to the bank. Katie continued: ‘The biggest winning bet on the name Louis was 3k win by a punter who put £200 on yesterday (Thursday) when the odds were at 16/1.’

 

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2018/04/27/odds-royal-baby-called-louis-serious-money-made-7503039/?ito=cbshare

 

 

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2018/04/27/odds-royal-baby-called-louis-serious-money-made-7503039/?ito=cbshare

 

 

[victoriasponge]

38 minutes ago, front hugs > duggs said:

So is the Louis in One Direction actually Loo-eee also?

Yes.

Yes he is.

Finally the fanfiction trope where a huge plot point is Harry calling him Lewis makes sense.

don't judge me, i was 15, i've moved on

[Buzzard]

39 minutes ago, front hugs > duggs said:

Like @VelociRapture , I am from the Northeast US. Unlike VelociRapture, I have heard Louis pronounced Lew-is my entire life.

Is my life a lie!?!? 

 

So is the Louis in One Direction actually Loo-eee also? This is going to take a while to reprogram my brain....

I've always pronounced is LEW-is.

Ignorant American question - do the people that care for these children have to call them by their titles?  "Excuse me, your highness, you have boogers."

[WiseGirl]

57 minutes ago, TheOneAndOnly said:

Now I'm going to have Brother Louie by Hot Chocolate playing in my head all day.

Thanks so much for this earworm.  To think I was worried about "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" just a few short days ago. 

"Louie, Louie, Louieeeeeeeeee....." is now taking up precious  brain space.

[tabitha2]

16 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

I've always pronounced is LEW-is.

Ignorant American question - do the people that care for these children have to call them by their titles?  "Excuse me, your highness, you have boogers."

 No. The British Royal family is adamant young children aren’t catered to like that. They are just called by their names till of age or on official occasions. When Young Zara and Peter Phillips made a game of going back and forth making the guards and Ran to tell their Mom she was furious and marched them back and made them apologize. 

 

When Queen Mary was taking Elizabeth and Margaret for an outing The Princess mentioned something about all the people coming to see them and Her grandmother promptly took the girls home.  And when she heard her Elder Grandaughter being rude to a servant she Told her “ You may Princess but you are no Lady” 

[catlady]

1 hour ago, singsingsing said:

I still don’t get reusing one of your other kids’ middle names as a first name, but meh, it’s not like it actually matters (more of a pet peeve on my part). And actually it’s kind of cute to have that link between the brothers.

i've known exactly one person IRL who has done this (the Maxwells are their own category, so we won't count them  ).  i had a coworker about 12 years ago who absolutely adored the name Evan.   long before she met her husband, she wanted to use it if she ever had a son.  her first child was a boy, and they had a reason (that i no longer remember) for naming their son Michael; they used Evan as his middle name.  they knew they wanted no more than 2 kids, and the second one might well be a girl, so Evan as a middle name was a compromise of sorts.  a few years went by and they had their second and final baby; he too was a boy, so mom insisted on his first name being Evan.  she knew it was an odd thing to do, but still wanted a son named Evan.  his middle name was *not* Michael.

[viii]

26 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

 No. The British Royal family is adamant young children aren’t catered to like that. They are just called by their names till of age or on official occasions. 

So at school they're known as George and Charlotte Cambridge then?

The name is growing on me more since I first heard the news. It originally annoyed me that they'd reuse a name, but at least it's George's second middle name, and not the first. I'd have thought it very weird if they had gone with Alexander. I suppose sometimes you end up loving a name so much you regret using it as a middle and want to use it as a first. I really did like Arthur, but it was just so predictable, so at least they managed to surprise us a bit. And nice nod to Charles, who despite everything, does seem like a good dad/grandpa. 

[TuringMachine]

Given the small name pool they have to work with, Louis is a fine choice. I hadn't considered it because I didn't think they were going to reuse any of George's names, but I don't think it's that big of a deal. It would only bother me if they reused George, since that would feel like naming the baby after his older brother 

Also count me as one of the ignorant americans that pronounced Louis like Lewis

[Carm_88]

Praise Rufus that it's not Prince Albert! That poor child, I would never have been able to take him serious if he were Albert. Prince Louis is a good name!  I quite like it! Louis was also Philip's maternal grandfather, so it makes sense!

I was terrified of it being Albert. I couldn't shake the idea of me someday crying with laughter in a corner of a nursing home as the news blared that Prince Albert was visiting such and such a country. 

[anjulibai]

27 minutes ago, viii said:

So at school they're known as George and Charlotte Cambridge then?

 

Yup. William and Harry use Wales as their last names, and Beatrice and Eugenie use York. 

Which is kind of funny, because technically their last name is Mountbatten-Windsor. It's what they used for marriage registries, so I'm not sure why they don't use them in everyday life. 

[nausicaa]

2 hours ago, singsingsing said:

So glad it’s not Albert!

I still don’t get reusing one of your other kids’ middle names as a first name, but meh, it’s not like it actually matters (more of a pet peeve on my part). And actually it’s kind of cute to have that link between the brothers.

Louis isn’t my favourite name in the world but it’s already growing on me. ‘Prince Louis’ is pretty adorable - but it’s also a name that works well for an adult. All in all, I’m a fan.

Color me shocked. I really thought we were going to get an Arthur or an Alfred, which just seems to flow with their other two kids' names. I'm also surprised there haven't been more nods to Kate's family. Obviously I know that they are limited in their first name choices, but my understanding was that Kate made it clear before marriage that her family wouldn't be pushed out the way the Spencers were, and so I thought there would be some Middleton-influenced middle names.

And "Michael" seems to be perfectly English, Anglican, and acceptable as a middle name for a monarch. At least to my dumb American ears. It's not like her dad's name is "Napoleon" or "Diesel" or something.

I didn't have strong bets on their first two kids, but was confident we were getting an Arthur/Alfred Michael Philip this time.

[viii]

I didn't think Michael was a stronger contender, but I thought there might be a James or Francis reference in there somewhere. Unless perhaps Pippa asked her to refrain since she plans to use the name?

[louisa05]

1 hour ago, nausicaa said:

Color me shocked. I really thought we were going to get an Arthur or an Alfred, which just seems to flow with their other two kids' names. I'm also surprised there haven't been more nods to Kate's family. Obviously I know that they are limited in their first name choices, but my understanding was that Kate made it clear before marriage that her family wouldn't be pushed out the way the Spencers were, and so I thought there would be some Middleton-influenced middle names.

And "Michael" seems to be perfectly English, Anglican, and acceptable as a middle name for a monarch. At least to my dumb American ears. It's not like her dad's name is "Napoleon" or "Diesel" or something.

I didn't have strong bets on their first two kids, but was confident we were getting an Arthur/Alfred Michael Philip this time.

Charlotte is Pippa's middle name. And Kate and her mother share the middle name Elizabeth which is one of Charlotte's--so her family is represented there. 

The Spencers were not pushed out so much as Diana did not have extremely close relationships with her parents partly due to the turmoil surrounding their divorce when she was young. She did remain in regular contact with her sisters throughout her life and spent time with them; it just wasn't anything reported by the press and then the idea that the royal family somehow took away those relationships became part of the poor, suffering Diana mythology. 

I knew they would surprise us with an unexpected choice this time. Prince Louis is already fifth in line and will continue to drop in his lifetime, so a less traditional choice was possible. 

[freethemall]

6 hours ago, victoriasponge said:

Hold up. Americans pronounce Louis as Lewis?

Mind blown. 

On NPR I just heard them say Lewis instead of Louis!

4 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

It’s for Lord Louis Mountbatten who was a Father figure and Mentor to Charles. He was Murdered By an IRA bomb.

Is that the one in the newest season of the Crown who is trying to help Charles go to Eton and takes him to try out uniforms?

[nausicaa]

11 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

Charlotte is Pippa's middle name. And Kate and her mother share the middle name Elizabeth which is one of Charlotte's--so her family is represented there. 

The Spencers were not pushed out so much as Diana did not have extremely close relationships with her parents partly due to the turmoil surrounding their divorce when she was young. She did remain in regular contact with her sisters throughout her life and spent time with them; it just wasn't anything reported by the press and then the idea that the royal family somehow took away those relationships became part of the poor, suffering Diana mythology. 

I probably worded that too directly from pro-Diana press, but I do think the Spencers seemed to be far less integrated than the Middletons are. Some of that probably was that Diana didn't come from as functional or close of a family, and had her own issues with alienating people. But at the same time, I do think the royal family didn't think of the marriage as two families coming together back then. They certainly wouldn't have had Diana's father take the first official picture of the new family in their backyard, and I don't think "John," "Sarah," and "Frances" would have been allowed as even middle names for Diana's children. 

To the royal family's credit, they seem to have learned from a lot of their mistakes in hewing too closely to the old guard. Helped of course by the fact that the Middletons by all appearances are a far healthier and more functioning family. 

[louisa05]

6 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

I probably worded that too directly from pro-Diana press, but I do think the Spencers seemed to be far less integrated than the Middletons are. Some of that probably was that Diana didn't come from as functional or close of a family, and had her own issues with alienating people. But at the same time, I do think the royal family didn't think of the marriage as two families coming together back then. They certainly wouldn't have had Diana's father take the first official picture of the new family in their backyard, and I don't think "John," "Sarah," and "Frances" would have been allowed as even middle names for Diana's children. 

To the royal family's credit, they seem to have learned from a lot of their mistakes in hewing too closely to the old guard. Helped of course by the fact that the Middletons by all appearances are a far healthier and more functioning family. 

John is not a popular name in the royal family, so there is that. King John, Magna Carta, all that. But I don't know that "Frances" would have been banned. I highly doubt Diana would have wanted it. Not as a tribute to her mother anyway. She felt abandoned by her mother from a very young age and that may have been the one instance in which her feelings weren't completely separated from the reality. 

It was pretty set in stone that those marrying into the family not expect holidays to be shared and such things that normal families usually do in that regard, so that has definitely changed with the Queen's grandchildren (all of them, not just William and Kate, other married grandchildren are sometimes absent as well, presumably with the other side--but pretending she has no other grandchildren than Harry & William and possibly the York girls is frequent in the press, too,  . Certainly, Peter and Zara barely exist).

I think the Queen has relaxed in a lot of ways, but at the same time, some things are not so unusual. She was not really a full time working royal in the early days of her own marriage and when Charles and Anne were very young--that had begun to change by the time her father died in part due to his ongoing illness. So the fact that Kate has been given some space in terms of work load while she has young children is not as out of the box as people are making it and I doubt the Queen feels she is being "lazy" as the press likes to characterize it. The Queen also guarded her time more to be home more when Andrew and Edward were young--something she did not do in the earlier part of her reign (possibly because she felt pressure to do her duty and, as some biographers have concluded, because the officials of the court did not understand and were not accustomed to a female monarch with young children). Diana was also eased into the life of royal engagements much more than it has been made out in recent years and was, like Kate, allotted plenty of time off late in her pregnancies and while she had very young children.