<p>I was happy they chose Louis. Wouldn’t be surprised if they used Alex as a casual name. After all, Prince Harry’s formal first name is actually Henry.</p>
<p>Hmmm . . . . William Wales and Kate Cambridge have a baby boy, George Alexander Louis . . . Wales-Cambridge?</p>
<p>No, that can’t be right. William adopted the surname Wales while in military service before he had titles of his own, so he relied on his father’s. Now his highest title is Duke of Cambridge, so I think he’s HRH Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (or “Cambridge” for short), his wife is Duchess Catherine (Kate) of Cambridge (“Duchess Cambridge”), and their son is HRH Prince George Alexander Louis Cambridge.</p>
<p>I think.</p>
<p>And when Charles becomes King George VII, William will become Prince of Wales and they’ll all change their surname to Wales, with William holding that surname for a second time. And when William becomes king . . . well, kings don’t have surnames, except of their own choosing (just as Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip chose Mountbatten-Windsor). So who knows?</p>
<p>Maybe that’s why they need so many given names: so they can remember who they are, notwithstanding all the changing titles and surnames.</p>
<p>Does anyone know why Prince Andrew’s daughters are princesses and Prince Edward’s daughter is a Lady and his son is a Lord?</p>
<p>Good question, electronblue.</p>
<p>I remember something years ago that Charles’ sister Princess Anne chose not to have her children have titles, so I guess they get some say in this.</p>
<p>I will add that if my parents had had an option for me to be a Princess and had turned it down, I would not have been happy! But that’s me. :)</p>
<p>Fall Girl, evidently Edward & Sophie also agreed with the Queen that their children would not be princes/princesses at the time of their marriage, but they weren’t willing to go as far as Princess Anne and have them be commoners. They elected the styling of Lady and Viscount for Louise and James. Their titles will change at the death of Edward’s father. At their marriage, the Queen also decreed that upon Phillip’s death, when the title Duke of Edinburgh reverts to the monarchy, that Edward would receive that title. He is currently Early of Wessex so that his wife has a title (Countess of Wessex) to use rather than be Princess Edward. It was for the same reason that William become Duke of Cambridge so that Catherine wouldn’t have to be called Princess William. </p>
<p>As far as I know, the only female “close” to the throne that is styled so is Princess Michael of Kent, wife of the Queen’s cousin Prince Michael of Kent. His older brother is the Duke of Kent, having inherited that title from his father, son of George V. Their sister is Princess Alexandra, godmother to Prince William.</p>
<p>Wow. This title business is complicated.</p>
<p>Anyone know what name(s) are put on the royals’ tombstones? (Assuming they have tombstones, I don’t know)</p>
<p>Various British papers list the surname as Mountbatten-Windsor.</p>
<p>Daily Mirror
</p>
<p>I dislike the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. Windsor of course is entirely fictitious and Mountbatten is the (not very good) translation of the German name Battenberg. Once the Queen and Phillip are dead, I think most future royals will revert back to using just Windsor. </p>
<p>Prince Edward’s children will become Prince and Princess of Edinburgh after their grandfather’s death.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Princess Anne’s children aren’t commoners, they are still entitled to be Prince and Princess regardless of whether they use the title or not. I personally think Anne had the right idea. Her children are much more normal and down to earth than the spoilt brats Beatrice and Eugenie.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is true that there are reports Anne and her first husband turned down offers by the Queen to make their children members of the peerage. However, the children are not royal by birth because they are grandchildren of the Queen in the female line and historically that meant they were NOT of royal birth. They are commoners by birth. The Queen would have had to intervene to give them titles. Edward’s children are royal, though he and Sophie did decline titles for them. That’s because they are grandchildren of the Queen in the MALE line, which makes them royal. So, if you’re giving credit to anyone for passing up titles, give it to Edward, not Anne. </p>
<p>As for better behaved…I think that’s more to do with age. Zara Phillips is about a decade older than Eugenie and Beatrice. She was in the tabloids a lot 10 years ago.</p>
<p>And, as a Catholic, I am well aware that her brother cares about his place in the succession, as his wife converted to Catholicism before marriage. If she hadn’t --this was before the recent change in law–he would have lost his place. He didn’t want to do that, so she converted.</p>
<p>Are the royal couple such ardent Seinfeld fans?</p>
<p>[Colbert</a> Nation | The Colbert Report | Comedy Central](<a href=“The Colbert Report - TV Series | Comedy Central US”>http://www.colbertnation.com/)</p>
<p>I was wondering where the line originated (assuming it was Colbert); thanks!</p>
<p>Are the royal couple such ardent Seinfeld fans?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t like the Mountbatten part either. Windsor isn’t fictitious (the name comes from the castle), but it was simply adopted, rather than taken by marriage or reference to a previous family name. But I like it; it sounds <em>so very British</em> and I hope they keep it. </p>
<p>Charles wouldn’t drop Mountbatten after the Queen dies, I don’t think, since he was so close to his uncle. But William showed that he’s willing to streamline things a bit when he gave little George 3 names instead of the usual 4. Maybe when he takes the throne, he’ll quietly drop Mountbatten.</p>
<p>They do have tombstones. Either in the chapel at Windsor or in Westminster Abbey. In fact these are tourist attractions, as some are very elaborate. For example, Elizabeth I has a full sized, full body statue of self lying on her tomb (I am sure there will be pictures in Google). As far as I know the graves have the title and not the surname on them, but there might be exceptions. The Queen’s parents are at Windsor and have just a flat slab in the floor. Henry VIII is right by them and surprisingly had the same (and has to share a grave with Charles I).</p>
<p>People put pomegranates on Katherine of Aragon’s grave. I am not sure why? I have seen this because it’s near Cambridge.</p>
<p>According to the official birth registration form, the baby’s Name and Surname is “His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge.”</p>
<p>[BBC</a> News - Prince George’s birth officially registered](<a href=“http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23552087]BBC”>Prince George's birth officially registered - BBC News)</p>
<p>jonri, don’t you mean his wife converted from Catholicism?</p>
<p>I’m guessing you have to be a member of the Church of England to stay in the game.</p>
<p>The concept of last name or surname is not a royal thing at all, and technically they don’t have surnames in the same way we do. They come from families and “houses” in the same way a Scot from the Middle Ages might be from the Campbell Clan - it doesn’t mean their names were Campbell. When you read Shakespeare, you’ll see they refer to King Henry as either Henry, or simply “England”. (Edited to add, he was born A Tudor as he was not born with a title.)</p>
<p>Surnames have an interesting history. Jews didn’t use surnames until the Middle Ages, when Christians needed them to have surnames for record keeping. That’s one of the reasons Jewish last names are often occupations - they just adopted those when the bureaucracy needed them. </p>
<p>In Italy, people used “clan” names taken from physical characteristics of a prominent founder of the clan. The members may have been related loosely or not at all, but identified themselves with the clan (again, similar to the Campbell illustration). It’s fascinating that we still see this in the Mafia, where members are referred to as something like “Jimmy the Chin” or that they’re part of the Gambino family, regardless of what their legal last name might be. </p>
<p>In Spain, people’s names are a string of names of male and female parents/grandparents, etc. they can use all of them or one or two of them. Usually they will adopt the names most important or favored. So Pablo had a bunch of names, but dropped all but Picasso, as someone pointed out early on this string. </p>
<p>Anyway, I hope this wasn’t derailing the thread. I mention all this because I love genealogy, and to point out that surnames were developed for bureaucratic reasons to identify which Jesus (“of Nazareth”) or which William you were. Royalty doesn’t need them since their titles are who they are. As in Shakespeare, Charles isn’t just Charles Windsor, but rather Charles Prince of Wales or as his son is known, Wales.</p>
<p>hayden, I don’t think you’re derailing. After all the whole point of this thread is royal names. :)</p>
<p>I just thought it was interesting that William and Kate evidently want the baby to be known as a Cambridge, rather than a Wales or a Mountbatten-Windsor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jews have always used surnames, but they weren’t hereditary until comparatively recently; they were patronyms. As in, Isaac son of Moses would be known as Isaac ben Moses, or Isaac Moses in dealing with the civil authorities. Isaac’s son Jonas would be known as Jonas Isaac. And so on. With some exceptions for prominent families (like my Weil and Bloch ancestors, who were using those surnames no later than the 17th century), Ashkenazi Jews did not begin using hereditary surnames until the early 19th century, when they were required to do so by law in the countries they lived in – 1808 in France, 1809 in Baden, 1812 in Prussia, 1826 in Russian Poland, and so on. </p>
<p>Also, Jewish surnames are no more likely to be based on occupation than the surnames of any other ethnic group. There is a virtually infinite variety of types of Jewish surnames, as explained in the many books on the subject (in a couple of which I’m mentioned in the acknowledgements section, albeit under my former name). There are, of course, some kinds of surname origin that are more likely to be Jewish than not – for example, names based on precious stones or metals (Diamond, Ruby, Safir, Pearl, Gold, Silver, etc.), on certain European cities (Amsterdam, Paris, Berlin, Frankfurter, Wiener [Vienna], etc.), and on some colors (Green, Ross, and sometimes [but certainly not always] Weiss and Schwartz) but not others (Braun is never a Jewish name, for whatever reason).</p>