Yeah, but Elizabeth didn’t die tragically early before she took the throne, nor had any legendary baggage associated with her name or ‘return’. I think it would just cause too much confusion, as well as be the fount of endless tired jokes about Excalibur and Merlin and what-have-you. Wills and Kate also have to be perceptive of the future; if you want the monarchy to look fresh and lively in the 21st century naming him after a medieval folk tale might not be the way to go.
Having said that, I do like the sound of King David; it’s also a nod to the Scots as a few of their kings had that regal name before unification. Doubtful because of all the biblical connotations, though.
I doubt Victoria II would be chosen if it’s a girl; just sounds too imperialistic in these cosmopolitan times.
The Heir to the throne of Sweden is Princess Victoria. She gave birth last February to a girl she called Estelle. Queen Estelle sounds really odd to me.
Arthur doesn’t figure in the pre 1066 kings of England/Wessex. Alfred does. But, as Alfred was the only king to be called ‘The Great’, it would be a difficult name to live up to.
I’d go for Arthur.
Although, given the family’s history of baldness, Eadwig might be appropriate.
The unborn child would be become monarch, and it’s reign would begin before it was born. In the event of a stillbirth the reign would be expunged and King Henry IX’s reign would be backdated.
The rules haven’t actually been changed yet, but this does give new urgency to changing them. Especially if it turns out to be a set of mixed-sex fraternal twins
Under current law the next person in line who’s over 21 (18 if heir presumptive) becomes Regent, so it would be Prince Harry, not the Duchess of Cambridge. She’s be the child’s legal guardian though. Parliament could also change the law allowing her to be the regent (like they did for Prince Phillip when his wife became Queen), but that probally wouldn’t happen until her husband becomes King and she Queen(-consort).
Not so fast. ‘Pippa’ is short for Philippa, which would actually be quite a good choice for a girl. It has the right sort of historical connotations and it would be seen as a nod to her great-grandfather. (Whereas Philip for a boy would create the problem as to whether he eventually becomes Philip I or Philip II.)
Of course – do you mean just in England? Or other countries?
King William IV and Queen Adelaide had stillborn twins in 1822.
Jean, Grand Duke of Luxemburg, and his wife Josephine-Charlotte of Belgium had twins, Jean and Margaretha, in 1957.
One of the most famous sets were Cleopatra Selene and Alexander Helios, born to Mark Antony and Cleopatra VII of Egypt.
That’s just reigning monarchs.
Berenguer Ramon II and Ramon Berenguer II (yes, really), counts of Barcelona in the 11th century, were the twin sons of Ramon Berenguer I and his second wife, Almodis de la Marche. The twins both inherited the county upon their father’s death, but several years later Berenguer Ramon had his brother Ramon Berenguer murdered. Interestingly, the twins’ half-brothers from their mother’s other marriages were Hugh VI “le diable”, lord of Lusignan and count of La Marche, and counts Guillaume IV and Raymond IV of Toulouse, all Crusader lords.
If I heard correctly, if they have a boy, he can be titled His Royal Highness upon birth; however, if they have a girl, she cannot be titled Her Royal Highness until after The Queen dies.
That’s true, but it can also be changed by the Queen at her will.
In fact, there is precedent to do so. When Princess Elizabeth married Prince Phillip, her children would not have enjoyed the style of HRH from birth since she was the daughter of the sovereign (George VI). Yet, everyone knew that Elizabeth would one day ascend the throne (King George and Queen Elizabeth [the Queen Mother] weren’t having any more children, so there was no danger of a son supplanting her). As a result, George VI issued letters patent stating that the children of the [then] Duchess of Edinburgh would enjoy HRH status from birth. Otherwise, they would have had to wait until Elizabeth ascended the throne.
Why would he be Philip II? Because of the King of Spain who never really reigned in England?
We can expect four given names, like the three Waleses all have now, all pretty much traditional Christian names. There will probably be nods to relatives in the middle names, and at least one name that’s been chosen as an ideal name to reign with. Past that, I don’t think we know.
The Wales princes:
Charles Philip Arthur George
William Arthur Philip Louis
Henry Charles Albert David
Wills and Harry’s mother was Diana Frances. Their stepmother is Camilla Rosemary.
Kate is properly is Catherine Elizabeth. Her parents are named Michael Francis and Carole Elizabeth, her sister is Philippa Charlotte.
So something like Adele Caroline Frances Louise would give the Cambridges’ daughter a distinct name while giving indirect nods to lots of family. (I like the idea of Caroline especially; it evokes Carole, Charlotte, and Charles, while being distinct.)
