Prince Harry
- Thread starter Olympia
- Start date
the photos of the beautiful family!
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
- Country
-
It was rumored somewhere that the top 3 names, Alexander was 3rd on the list. I'm for Alexander too. Someone on TV said a good name for the royal wee little one ....Kanye...who acts like a baby sometimes.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2012
- Country
-
Baby name just announced:
George Alexander Louis
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23443504
http://news.sky.com/story/1119977
So, yet another King George is in prospect. :disapp:
Oh well, at least I was right that Alexander would be in there!
And my Dad got his Louis!
CaroLiza_fan
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
- Country
-
Baby name just announced:
George Alexander Louis
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23443504
http://news.sky.com/story/1119977
So, yet another King George is in prospect. :disapp:
Oh well, at least I was right that Alexander would be in there!
And my Dad got his Louis!
CaroLiza_fan
You did a great job of predicting! I was fairly sure about George, but Alexander came out of left field for me. George was a possibility for me because of how popular George VI was, and so recently too, and because he was the present Queen's father. I didn't think they'd give the boy the same first name as either his father or his grandfather, which weeded out William and Charles. I was hoping for Arthur in there somewhere, though. Notice that this little cutie pie has only three names, whereas Charles and William (and Anne, Andrew, and probably all the others) have four.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
- Country
-
He hasn't been christened yet; he should have 4 then. When I hear Arthur, I think of the movie with Dudley Moore.
Dudley Moore? Perish the thought. Arthur est rex quondam futurusque--the once and future king. The Waleses missed a great chance to give the name to one more generation. William and his father each have the name as one of theirs.
Oh, I looked up the Queen, and she also only has three names: Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, after her mother, great-grandmother, and grandmother.
I must say, I'm quite moved every time I see the two photos side by side, of Catherine and William with their baby next to Diana and Charles with their baby, William himself. The continuity of generations is so strong across the two photos.
Oh, I looked up the Queen, and she also only has three names: Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, after her mother, great-grandmother, and grandmother.
I must say, I'm quite moved every time I see the two photos side by side, of Catherine and William with their baby next to Diana and Charles with their baby, William himself. The continuity of generations is so strong across the two photos.
I told you all it would be George. And that no names related to Diana would be included.
Right you were, Louisa. I was hoping for Francis, the male version of Diana's middle name, because it's also the name of a legendary British hero, Drake. But I suspect that Alexander is for Elizabeth (whose middle name is Alexandra), so it's got continuity, and of course Louis is for Mountbatten and George for George VI.
But look where they've gone to stay! They are indeed at Grandma's house! Apparently they were able to secure the perimeter. I'm delighted this turned out to be possible.
ETA: Does anyone realize that none of the names in question are English names at all? Alexander is Greek, Louis is French, and George, William, Charles, and Harry/Henry all come from Norman. No Saxon or Celtic names at all. (Edward would have been Saxon, to be sure.) This is one reason I was so hopeful for Arthur.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
A girl would have been named that over the Queen's dead body. And, honestly, I wouldn't blame her. Diana did her no favors.
Look for Harry's children to bear those names, not William's. Trust me. I got this one right.
A girl would have been named that over the Queen's dead body. And, honestly, I wouldn't blame her. Diana did her no favors.
Look for Harry's children to bear those names, not William's. Trust me. I got this one right.
Not only that, I can't imagine any member of the British royal family ever bearing a name that contains the surname of another family. I don't know if there's a law against it, but I'm sure that tradition at least would never allow it. A royal child is considered to be the product of the royal line only, not some lesser strain.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
Yes. And I also just read that using surnames as first/middle names is considered a bit low class by British elites. I know in the past, it was not uncommon for a surname to be hyphenated when powerful families were united by marriage rather than the American trend of using the mother's surname for a son's given name. So that adds to the odds that "Spencer" never appears in a royal baby name.
I don't think the royal family, even her sons, has sanctified Diana posthumously the way so many "fans" have. And Earl Spencer has not exactly comported himself well since his sister's death starting with his "eulogy". The family is not likely to embrace them even symbolically. Not in the high profile way that naming William's children after them would be. Again, look for Harry to have a daughter with the middle name Diana or Frances.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
according to one of the talking heads on tv last night Alexandria was supposedly Kate's pick had she had a princess and not a prince, so I don't think the child was going to have her grandmother's name anyway.
Never did buy into the Diana worship, and I don't think William wanted to burden his child with something like that anyway. Especially with all the ugliness between the two families in the media.
Never did buy into the Diana worship, and I don't think William wanted to burden his child with something like that anyway. Especially with all the ugliness between the two families in the media.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
Considering that the Royals have a lot of German and Russian in their bloodline.......also, Prince Phillip is Greek. The current Queen's father changed the family name to Windsor as a result of WWII.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
I agree that William likely did not want to burden his child with the added expectations in being Diana's namesake. While I do think Diana freshened the royal family, I also view her as a flawed human, and all of the Royals, as well. The royals have always been involved in charities, but weren't as overt about it as Diana. I'm not trying to denigrate her, I'm just saying that some of what she is lauded for are traits that the Royals were already practicing.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
That would be grandfather and World War I.
Actually, both sides of Charles's family changed their names. Saxe-Coburg became Windsor, didn't it? And Philip's family was orinally Battenberg, which they Anglicized into Mountbatten. It's an ironic situation that because Germany was (except for Catholic Bavaria) the largest Protestant country in Europe, it had centuries-long alliances with Britain, not to mention the fact that the House of Hanover actually became the British royal family starting with George I. The joke when Charles married Diana was that she had more English blood than he did. But after World War I it was almost radioactive to have any Germanic ties.
Toni, I understand your take on Diana--she had many flaws--but she also did an amazing amount of good for someone who had a lot of headcase in her makeup. I agree with Heyang that other Royals were active in charities (especially the almost anti-glamorous Princess Anne, whom I greatly admire), but Diana was able to connect with people in a way that heartened them and inspired others to act. If you think of the timing: she came along during the start of the AIDS epidemic. People were afraid of being in the same room with anyone who was sick, because at first, we didn't even know how it was spread. (The virus was not isolated for a few years.) Add to this that most of the early AIDS patients were already on the edges of society: they were gay, or IV drug users. Diana didn't just smile at them. She hugged them. This was monumental. Not to take anything away from any of the other Royals' work, but she brought something unique to the efforts of this family. She was unstable but also charismatic, and I for one had great affection for her. I doubt she was easy to live with, but if that were the measure of quality, we'd have to exclude Gandhi and Beethoven as well.
ETA: Toni, thanks for the tidbit about the name Alexander possibly being Catherine's choice. I'm so glad one of the names at least might have been given from pure sentiment or preference, not just family duty.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2004
JMHO, but I hope the Queen doesn't feel this way. When all is said and done, Diana did give her two grandsons, thereby securing the direct line of succession for another generation, and Diana's son has now further secured the line. From the little bit I've seen, the Queen seems to care a great deal about William and Harry, and vice versa. I'd like to think that, both as a grandmother and as Queen, she wouldn't trade them for anything.
Olympia, ITA with your Post #10 and what you wrote about Diana and her charity work.
I also agree that Kate's unified and seemingly happier childhood gives her an advantage that Diana did not have; and that Kate and William seem to work together as a team very well, a quality that, unfortunately, eluded Diana and Charles. I wish them (and their new addition) well.
I can remember Diana being criticized in the press both for wearing clothing more than once and also for not wearing clothing more than once. It seemed she was damned if she did and damned if she didn't. I don't know if the two retail chains cited were around when Diana was alive, but I do remember she championed British designers from early on. No doubt the local economy directly benefitted from her patronage of same. And, of course, her charities continue to benefit, to this day, from the exhibitions of her clothing.
If it's important to her, then I think it's great that Kate is frugal with her clothing (these are different economic times) and I hope she doesn't have to undergo the scrutiny that Diana did.
I, too, was moved by the pictures of Kate and William with their baby which are so similar to the pictures of Diana and Charles with baby William. I couldn't help notice that Kate also wore a polka-dot dress, though in a different color than Diana's; and I thought that was a subtle, lovely touch. William was born on what was my very last day of high school; and I distinctly remember his birth being a hot topic of conversation among my friends when we all went out for a last lunch as classmates that day.
I feel as though William, Harry and, now, Kate, have demonstrated that they honor Diana appropriately, in their own ways. If including Diana's name in some way to any future child's name is important to them, I'm sure they'll do it. And if they don't, that's fine.
I don't think that I'm a "crazy" Diana fan, but I did admire her from afar. I was 16 when she and Charles married, working my first retail job over the summer so that I could be a bridesmaid (for the first time) at my cousin's wedding that September. My parents agreed, as long as I earned the money for the dress, etc., on my own. I camped out in our livingroom the night before the royal wedding so that I could wake up at 4:30 a.m. to start watching the coverage without waking up the whole house. It was a fairy tale come to life; very intoxicating to my 16 year-old self. I have no souvenirs of that day, save for my memories.
As time went by, I was happy to hear about the births of William and Harry and, eventually, saddened that the marriage was troubled and, eventually, over. Like most people, I was shocked at Diana's death. It saddened me greatly. I was unable to watch her funeral because I was on vacation at the time.
I'd like to think that, whether one walks on top of the fence or on either side of the fence as regards Diana, we can all agree it's incredibly sad that she isn't here to see the fine young men her sons have grown up to be, or to meet her daughter-in-law and her new grandson.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
Diana did all she could to destroy the public image of the Queen and Charles. Not appreciating that does not equate to not loving her grandsons. People are capable of more complex emotions and understanding than that. But considering the ultimate damage to the family that came via the Spencers--Earl Spencer's eulogy alone is likely enough to make the Queen quite opposed to any grandchildren being named for that family--no one should begrudge the Queen not having a fondness for the woman. Even her death turned into a PR nightmare for the Queen when in retrospect it seems she was trying to do the right thing. We now know that Charles had decided to keep his boys at Balmoral for a few days to allow them to grieve away from the public eye and the Queen chose to stay to be with her grandsons. How was that a horrible disrespect to Diana? Would she not have wanted her boys to be surrounded by their family?
Diana knew full well when she sat down with Andrew Morton and when she gave the television interview that protocol meant that anything she said about the Queen, Phillip and the Queen Mother could not be refuted by them. And she used that to her advantage. She was the poor victim and they were the villains of the story along with Charles and Camilla. And all of them are still saddled with it and it has been magnified by her death. It also puts her sons in bad position. That is their family, yet some people scream loudly for them to take a side against their own father, even now--I saw all over the web people whining that Camilla should not have been allowed to see the baby, that Charles will be an abhorrent grandfather and so on. On top of that, they are expected to dedicate every moment of their lives loudly and publicly to their dead mother--name their children for her, mention her at every turn, and always be sad about her. It is quite possible that they would like that to be private--wouldn't most of us if we had experienced such a loss?
I also think that by all appearances William and Harry like Camilla. If they have accepted her and moved on from the disaster that was their parents' marriage, the world perhaps should.
Diana knew full well when she sat down with Andrew Morton and when she gave the television interview that protocol meant that anything she said about the Queen, Phillip and the Queen Mother could not be refuted by them. And she used that to her advantage. She was the poor victim and they were the villains of the story along with Charles and Camilla. And all of them are still saddled with it and it has been magnified by her death. It also puts her sons in bad position. That is their family, yet some people scream loudly for them to take a side against their own father, even now--I saw all over the web people whining that Camilla should not have been allowed to see the baby, that Charles will be an abhorrent grandfather and so on. On top of that, they are expected to dedicate every moment of their lives loudly and publicly to their dead mother--name their children for her, mention her at every turn, and always be sad about her. It is quite possible that they would like that to be private--wouldn't most of us if we had experienced such a loss?
I also think that by all appearances William and Harry like Camilla. If they have accepted her and moved on from the disaster that was their parents' marriage, the world perhaps should.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Sticky
