Will seems more mature, for no good reason, to me. Wills, sounds a little effeminate, also for no good reason, I can think of.
I find the names thing very intriguing. It’s Will/Wills & Kate in most of the material I see. But surely once enthroned they’ll be William and Catherine, right? So why not just start off on that foot?
I admit to a certain indifference to all of the Royal Wedding Hype. I can enjoy it for the show it is, and nothing more. Most of it is just amusing. Where will the stag be? Will there be strippers? Is Camilla trying to sink Kate? What will the dress be like? On and on, it’s a great distraction from the daily grind, as I see it.
The wedding is being broadcast live from the abbey, in Canada on the CBC, at 3am that Friday. I was surprised to learn who would be doing the colour commentary. I’m sure they’ll have someone else for the re broadcast later in the day, when, I assume, most people will watch. Tracy Ulman!
An excellent, and irreverent choice in my opinion. I think I might just try and stay awake to watch it.
Wills sounds like a little boy’s nickname to me, mostly because I’ve never heard anyone over the age of 12 being addressed as such (until this thread I didn’t know anyone was calling the prince that). It’s kind of sweet, and nicer than Willie.
I tried so hard to get my family to call my son (age 14 months) Wills as a cute baby name, but it didn’t take. So he’s just Will, but I still think Wills is cute for a little kid and as a family nickname.
And my daughter’s name is Kate. I didn’t do it on purpose, I promise.
For some reason, it works better for words that end in the [k] sound. Maybe because that sound can end a word without implying it is a plural?
I actually think “Wills” sounds kinda ghetto. I don’t know it it’s still used (or if it was just a stereotype), but I can easily hear something like “Whats ya doin’ Wills? Gets yo-selfs ova here.”
He may take any name he chooses to reign. He may stick with William. George is always popular. Edward is probably still out due to his great uncle for another generation. I doubt he’d choose Charles.
Which is why it’s clearly the most fitting and appropriate.
I’ve only heard “Will” from American commentators (and, to be fair, newspapers that didn’t want to try to squeeze in one more letter in the splash headline). I think you guys tend to be a bit more deferential about our royalty than we do.
If you think Wills is silly, consider Harry, whose given name’s not Harold or Harry, but Henry. In the unlikely event of his coronation (3 deaths in the succession w/ Will not having any kids in the meanwhile), can you imagine his naming dilemma? Because you know he’d never choose to be Henry the 9th.
Not to mention every British Royal now alive has been taught to despise him as having foisted the throne on Bertie, probably shortening his life. Not to say they’re right or anything, just that Edward/David hatred runs very deep. I see per Wiki that David wasn’t used in a Prince’s name until Harry.
Elizabeth knew Edward, and more importantly, her mother did and blamed him in part for her husband’s early death. William would have heard first hand stories.
His kids are not likely to hear first hand stories (or remember them). So they may be ready for Edward/David.
After all, as pointed out upthread, there has not yet been an Henry IX. Or a John II. The Royals seem to be really hung up on the name thing.
Although eventually the British Royal Family either needs to get over the name thing. They are running out of names.
