General Chat

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Quick Search

Single word search

Icons

  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

Did you notice William's remark?

Page 1 + 1 of 2

  1. «
  2. 1
  3. 2
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

ChrisofWessex

ChrisofWessex Report 24 Jul 2013 15:18

It only dawned on me yesterday that our son was at least 4 days old perhaps 5 when he was named.

The reason - we had decided we were having another girl and had not given a thought to naming a boy!!

ChrisofWessex

ChrisofWessex Report 24 Jul 2013 15:19

It only dawned on me yesterday that our son was at least 4 days old perhaps 5 when he was named.

The reason - we had decided we were having another girl and had not given a thought to naming a boy!!

RolloTheRed

RolloTheRed Report 24 Jul 2013 15:38

Whatever name he gets there are some that really are impossible.

Wayne for instance and Richard ...

The current line are descendants of Henry VII and the House of Lancaster. You may recall that Henry VII was closely involved with the death of the unfortunate Richard III, a name which has never figured with royalty since.

The reason it will take a while is that they are trying to think of an alternative to George and it is next to impossible. Let's see, Hanoverian male sovereigns:

George 1, II, III, IV, V, VI
William IV
Edward VII, VIII ( dud )

Which would you lay your money on ?

It may also be a bit tricky adding in something for the Middleton side but Francis has the right sort of ring.


SheilaSomerset

SheilaSomerset Report 24 Jul 2013 16:01

John? Can't see that one somehow
James
Stephen
Alfred
Harold

I like Richard, hope they choose that :-D Lancastrians and Yorkists still come from the same root.

Joeva

Joeva Report 24 Jul 2013 16:15

The first name of George V1 was Albert, known to the family as Bertie. It was only when he was declared King that he was called George. Could have been one of his other given names of course.

PollyinBrum

PollyinBrum Report 24 Jul 2013 16:16

I like Albert, Bertie sounds young too <3

jax

jax Report 24 Jul 2013 17:08

I expect when George the VI was born they were not expecting him to become king so didn't really give him a Royal name. Would imagine Edward VII was only given his fathers name as it was the norm back then?

Not sure I'm keen on Prince/King Dick :-D

RolloTheRed

RolloTheRed Report 24 Jul 2013 17:11

With royals the one thing you can be sure of is that the names of any who were completely over the top or losers will not get another go. Also once an enemy always an enemy. Names popular on TV and associated with Merlin or Warhammer won't get much of a go either nor will anything else pre 1066.

Thus Harold ( loser twice over, the current lot started out as Norman-French ), Henry ( the comedians would have a fine time with 'enery the ninth I am ), Richard ( enemy, loser civil wars are the most bitter ) James ( deposed ) are non starters. Charles II was a winner from a royalist perspective. George VI was king as George and not Albert 'cos he was not a man of great inner confidence and he wanted a winning name.

George William Philip Francis Mountbattern-Windsor

is my guess.

It is possible that William will be one of the few Kings of England never to have enjoyed the titles and income of being Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Lord of the Isles. No doubt he is hoping the bouncy young hand waver will shell out when the time comes.

Frederick

Frederick Report 24 Jul 2013 18:01


I think he should be called FRED.

Then he could be a FREDERICK the GREAT in the future.!!!

Don't call him Richard as in this modern day era he would probably

be called KING DICK. !!!!

F.

KempinaPartyhat

KempinaPartyhat Report 24 Jul 2013 18:09

I think they should call him Tyler!!!!!!!!!............pmsl


they should call him what they want

UzziAndHerDogs

UzziAndHerDogs Report 24 Jul 2013 18:13

I actually quite agree that they need to know the little chap before naming him. I have always wanted to do that with any animal I have had ..apart from Minx who is called anything but ... I also think they have him named but just need to sort the order of names out, and just maybe they would like to spend some time with their son before the limelight gets too much.

It would amuse me if they go for non king names ..but not the new names like Wayne an stuff but Robert or or or I get lost there.

Off to my hidey hole of probate stuff :-(

Rambling

Rambling Report 24 Jul 2013 18:20

Drat it's

George Alexander Louis

Joeva

Joeva Report 24 Jul 2013 18:24

Beat me to it RR - will delete my posting :-)

Purple **^*Sparkly*^** Diamond

Purple **^*Sparkly*^** Diamond Report 25 Jul 2013 02:49

I wasn't really referring to the name part of the comment I copied and pasted, but the other part.

I am a little disappointed with the names chosen, I thought they might have come up with something a bit different albeit in line with royal names. I do like Alexander tho.

There will be lots of little boys called George in the next few months I expect and girls called Georgina??


Lizx

PollyinBrum

PollyinBrum Report 25 Jul 2013 07:41

Rollo King George chose his name out of respect for father King George V. Actually Prince Charles could also decide to be King George.


PS I hope your little cat is feeling better.
:-S :-S