Queen Elizabeth news and photos

[Hester]

I’d put money on Lady Louise being allowed to name a girlchild Elizabeth…

[Aubiette]

At this point I hope Elizabeth is saved for the future offspring of George.

[Lady Liebe]

Just for grins:

Anne, Zara, Beatrice and Louise have Elizabeth as a middle name, as do Isla, Lena, Charlotte and Sienna.

Charles, William, James, Lucas and Augustus all have Phillip as a middle name.

Louise and James are certainly far enough away from starting families, and far enough down the line of succession, that no one would likely bat an eye if they used Elizabeth or Phillip as a first name. Genie and Bea would likely stick with middle names as they have already done.

If George has a girl, I would love to see him revive the name Victoria, even if she is not the oldest.


 

[Kristallinchen]

I think it's just for the fact that royal or not you usually don't name a child exactly like a (close) relative. Simply, because everyone should've it's known name.

[fairy]

I think it's just for the fact that royal or not you usually don't name a child exactly like a (close) relative. Simply, because everyone should've it's known name.

Tell that to the QueenMom!

[Lady Liebe]

I think it's just for the fact that royal or not you usually don't name a child exactly like a (close) relative. Simply, because everyone should've it's known name.

Tell that to the QueenMom!

Yeppers. 

Between us TKotb and me have 8 male relatives with the same name. He also has a couple of cousins who have the same name and one who shares her name with an aunt.

I will agree it is less common now. Genealogically speaking though, in generations past many sons were named after their fathers and daughters after their mothers. There are also naming patterns particular to various nationalities, which include names of grandparents etc in the mix.

The one that stands out for me is an ancestor of TKotb's whose son's all had the first name Johannes. I think there's six of them.

[Lady Alice]

I think it's just for the fact that royal or not you usually don't name a child exactly like a (close) relative. Simply, because everyone should've it's known name.

Tell that to the QueenMom!

Yeppers. 

Between us TKotb and me have 8 male relatives with the same name. He also has a couple of cousins who have the same name and one who shares her name with an aunt.

I will agree it is less common now. Genealogically speaking though, in generations past many sons were named after their fathers and daughters after their mothers. There are also naming patterns particular to various nationalities, which include names of grandparents etc in the mix.

The one that stands out for me is an ancestor of TKotb's whose son's all had the first name Johannes. I think there's six of them.

Very common in some cultures. My German immigrant ancestors all did that, the women with Maria as the forename, the men with Johannes. The very Catholic Spanish and Portuguese cultures did that too, for generations.

[Kristallinchen]

I think it's just for the fact that royal or not you usually don't name a child exactly like a (close) relative. Simply, because everyone should've it's known name.

Tell that to the QueenMom!

Concerning this I'm always torn between: Was it to honour the child or to honour yourself?

[bumbershoot]

My Norwegian immigrant grandfather was named Ole. As was his brother. And their sister was named Oline. Not a lot of imagination . . . .

[CyrilSebastian]

Queen Victoria of England had several granddaughters and great-granddaughters who had the first name of Victoria.

[fairy]

I think it's just for the fact that royal or not you usually don't name a child exactly like a (close) relative. Simply, because everyone should've it's known name.

Tell that to the QueenMom!

Concerning this I'm always torn between: Was it to honour the child or to honour yourself?

Absolutely! Though I weigh on the side of "honouring yourself"

[Lady Liebe]

I think it's just for the fact that royal or not you usually don't name a child exactly like a (close) relative. Simply, because everyone should've it's known name.

Tell that to the QueenMom!

Concerning this I'm always torn between: Was it to honour the child or to honour yourself?

Absolutely! Though I weigh on the side of "honouring yourself"

One of the Queen Mum's middle names was Marguerite so essentially both girls were named for her.

[LadyBunion]

I liked how David Linley (now Snowdon) and his wife named their daughter Margarita - honouring David's mother and possibly one of her favourite drinks with a variant of Margaret.

The Queen Mother wanted to call her second child Anne Margaret but King George V  Queen Mary didn't like it so she became Margaret Rose instead

""She said 'I'm very anxious to call her Ann Margaret, as I think Ann of York sounds pretty, & Elizabeth and Ann go so well together', but King George V disliked the name Anne but approved of the alternative Margaret Rose."

[bumbershoot]

Seriously, can the palace absolutely control what a royal baby is to be named? i know Harry's kids are an exception to every rule. But it seems to me that somebody has been exercising iron control over baby names. Didn't Sara want to name one of the Yorkies something like Anabelle and was quashed?  These days who is the boss of baby names?

[lilyrose]

I think they probably have more control over the names of their male-line grandchildren since they're (as of now) the ones who will be royal and represent the family. So while George V could veto Ann(e) and QE2 could veto Annabelle, no one was really all that concerned about Princess Anne naming her daughter Zara.

George IV (when still the Regent for his dad) also vetoed baby Victoria of Kent's names--at various points she had Georgiana, Augusta, and Charlotte among her names and they all got vetoed. So there must be some kind of authority, whether legal or not, for the monarch to approve names.