Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Prince Louis Arthur Charles!

Friday, April 27, 2018

Kensington Palace has released the name of William and Kate's third child. The little prince is Louis Arthur Charles and will go by HRH Prince Louis of Cambridge! 


I rewatched the royal wedding several weeks ago, and of course love the part where William and Kate exchange vows. I think you tend to love things about your loved one, so my bet is that Kate probably likes all of William's middle names. So, Louis was on my possibility list, but it wasn't the top. I thought she'd go for Alexander. Louis was my third option. I am surprised--not shocked, but surprised.

Interestingly, Louis was also the name of Lord Mountbatten, who was a close mentor to Prince Charles. He was murdered by the IRA on his yacht in 1979, a tragedy generally, but particularly devastating to Charles.  I am excited to hear what you all think of the name! 


172 comments:

  1. I love it! So pleased they went with something a little different to what most were guessing they would choose.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Having Charles in his name is not a surprise, especially since they used Diana in Charlotte’s name. Arthur is not a surprise either because it is in both William and Charles’ name. However Louis did surprise me. It is very old fashioned. I was hoping for Phillip or James.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think they should have named him after Kates father - Louis Arthur Michael - instead of Charles, he already has Charlotte.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe the Middletons don't put alot of stake in naming children after relatives while William's side of the family obviously does. I say that because while Kate has Elizabeth as a middle name as does Carole, I don't see "Catherine" or either of Pippa's given names directly represented in their family tree.  I see "James" was Carole's father's second middle name but I don't see any of the 3 sibs' names represented in Michael Middleton's side of the family including James's middle name of William. (Charlotte may be named after Charles but it seems just as likely she could have named after Pippa since Charlotte is Pip's middle name.)

      I wouldn't have predicted Louis but I like it!

      Delete
  4. To be honest, I’m surprised! I thought there was a possibility that he could be called Alexander, but not Louis. It’s an interesting choice...I was hoping Philip would be honoured in one of the names, but Arthur & Charles sound good to me :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wonder just how much William and Kate really can stray from tradition and make personal choices regarding the baby’s name. The name carrys a great deal of significance both personally and historically. I’m sure there were many suggestions, opinions, and consultations! Personally, I was hoping for a Phillip somewhere in there! Bless them all!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow, Jane, you were really quick posting the news! Thanks for your effort running this blog despite your other obligations.
    Louis surprised me. I would have preferred Alexander but it goes smoothly with George and Charlotte. Congratulations to the happy family!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I was hoping the names Philip and Michael would be included.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought it would've been. Just makes me think they'll go for another one!!

      Delete
  8. Couldn’t they have just given him seven names like King Edward VIII? Then nobody would be left out ie. Michael, Philip, James, Henry...etc

    ReplyDelete
  9. Love the Arthur Charles but the Louis not so much. Very disappointed, actually, that their daughter's name and now that of the second child.... are French. Charlotte and Louis. Elizabeth (or Diana) and Arthur (or Charles) would have been much more appropriate for children of the British monarchy. At least George is George.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm a little surprised that there isn't a Michael or a James in there somewhere & I am also a little surprised they used one of George's middle names but I'll get over it :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. I would have preferred Philipp but not Louis, it‘s to French in my opinion and remind me of Marie Antoinettes husband:-(

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wondering what took them so long. ;-) A little disappointed since I was hoping for Michael Arthur Philip

    ReplyDelete
  13. I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised as both William and George have it as one of their names and William and Charles have Arthur.
    I wonder how Catherine feels; she obviously doesn't get to use any of her family names and it is her family who help out with the children

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm looking for a fourth child--a girl named Carole Michelle. anon1
      Or a boy named Carl Michael.
      Although I don't think I could take anther Kate pregnancy...I'm too old for the anxiety and suspense. Ha!
      I was hoping they would have twins this time and be done with it. That was so clever of Mary of Denmark.

      Delete
    2. anon1, you crack me up! Clever Mary! I'm not sure Kate could take another pregnancy. She's probably happy to shift that focus to Meghan and Eugenie and let the press take close-ups of their bellies for a change! I do think it's a shame the Middleton family names aren't included.

      Delete
    3. Middleton names are not royal, the can't be used, only by coincidence, as Elizabeth.

      Delete
    4. Nonsense Anon 3.21. They can use any name they want- it will become "royal" if necessary.

      Michael IS a royal name. There are princes of that ilk in Europe right now and one of them is British. Carol is strangely enough also a royal name, as there were a few Kings of Romania named Carol (Charles) Caroline is totally royal - A certain Princess of Monaco for one, and one Queen of England.

      The 15th -18th persons in the Line of Succession are named Zara, Mia, Savannah (!!!) and Isla. The 57th (who used to be a lot higher up, back in the early '90s is named Zenouska! Forsooth!!!

      Delete
    5. Anon 1:10, they are NOT the heir's children. Another explanation??

      Delete
  14. Honestly, Louis surprised me. I was hoping for Alexander (many posters thought they would not use Alexander since it is one of Prince George’s middle names, however the royal family traditionally reuses names....as they have just done with Louis!) or Christian and praying for no Albert or Arthur (first name!) so I think it’s a good choice.I was surprised we didn’t see Michael in there.
    I never thought we would see James due to Kate’s brother, Pippa’s husband, and the Viscount Severn all being named James.
    Lovely little family! Thanks Jane!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm not surprised at all. Louis Mountbatten meant the world to Prince Phillip and to Prince Charles; his death left a void in their lives. The shocking thing to use the same name twice for two of your children, but this is a royal tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  16. DoC is a Francolphile by all accounts... so I think that she loves the name but couldn't give it to George... with the 3rd child, she probably felt a little more free.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Charles Philip Arthur George
    William Arthur Phillip Louis
    George Alexander Louis
    and now
    Louis Arthur Charles.

    Hmmmmmmm- all nice names although I do think it would be OK to step away from this somewhat boring rotation. But not my kid, and not my choice. Lord Louis Mountbatten would be very proud....and although it is well used named- there hasn't been an actual Prince Louis since.......well I don't know, will have to think about that - probably Prince Louis of Battenberg (born Ludwig Alexander) who married a granddaughter of Queen Vic and was Prince Phillip's grandfather.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for posting the names. I'd forgotten that Phillip has been honored several times already. I was feeling like Phillip should have been honored with naming this baby but now just wish it wasn't Louis (Loo-eee). So many beautiful names to choose from. . .

      Delete
    2. Margaret, I believe the last Prince Louis in the BRF would have been Lord Louis Mountbatten (who became Earl Mountbatten of Burma in 1947). He was born Prince Louis of Battenberg in 1900 and was great-grandson of Queen Victoria. His parents were Prince Louis of Battenberg and Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine (granddaughter of QV). Their daughter, Alice, was Prince Phillip's mom.

      If nothing else, Baby Cambridge has got everyone brushing up on BRF name history.

      Delete
    3. You are right of course Purpledawg, and thank you. Earl Mountbatten of Burma was born Prince Louis of Battenberg and there is a famous picture of him somewhere, sitting with Queen Victoria as one of her youngest great grandchildren (born about 6 months before she died). I believe he became Lord Louis Mountbatten when everyone anglicized their names during WW1.

      Delete
    4. He was born, Ludwig Alexander Prinz of Battenburg, in German, not Louis.

      Delete
    5. Who are you talking about Anonymous 11.38. ? The first Louis of Battenberg was born Ludwig Alexander VON Battenberg. He was not a prince or a Prinz at birth. He was an "Illustrious Highness" and the Count of Battenberg. Eventually his mother was given a royal title, and he was then a Serene Highness Prince Ludwig. I I imagine he changed his name to Louis when he joined the British Navy at the age of 14.

      Prince Louis (Francis Albert Victor Nicholas) of Battenberg was born Prince Louis of Battenberg in England and was a great-grandson of Queen Victoria. In 1917 he became simply Lord Louis Mountbatten when the Battenbergs anglicized their name and dropped their German connections.

      Delete
    6. Margaret, the first...he was the son of the Prince Alexander of Hesse-Darmstadt, so he was born as a prince. He had to give up all his German titles thought eventually.

      Delete
    7. And Louis III of Hesse- Darmstadt???

      Delete
  18. Not a huge fan (especially since it's pronounced Loo-eee in the UK instead of Lewis). Maybe they're trying to save some names for Harry & Meghan by reusing George's middle name?

    And I'm shocked there's no nod to the Middletons in his name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would the name Louis be pronounced anything but loo-ee? Lewis is a completely different name.

      Delete
    2. Americans pronounce the "s" Louis, so there is no difference to our ear between Lewis and Louis, and indeed, Lewis is an extremely rare spelling of the name here. South Americans also pronounce the "s" in their form of Louis, Luis. And it is my understanding that all but the French Canadians also pronounce the s in Louis.

      Delete
    3. LUIS is the form of the name in Spain, due to this in South America the use it too. In the South of Spain the "s" is not pronounced either.

      Delete
    4. The roots of the name are Clodovicus in Latin and ancient Germanic, Alois or Ludwig.

      Delete
    5. English Canadians customarily use the French pronunciation, too.

      Delete
  19. Jennifer from the SouthApril 27, 2018 at 7:32 AM

    Just going to be honest, not loving any part of this name. I am wholly underwhelmed.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I am a bit disappointed to be honest. A child named Louis on St. George’s Day? Hmm. I also thought we might see a nod to Kate’s family this time around. George was an obvious choice as was Charlotte with both families being recognized. But this choice, not wrongly by any means, seems somewhat French (as is Charlotte I suppose too in a sense) and that’s in no way disrespectful of the French. But it is a common thread throughout. I do think Arthur is fine. And I suppose I do like this more than Arthur or Albert as first names. I would have preferred Alexander or James as a first name. But maybe, some names should be reserved for Pippa/James Middleton and Harry respectively should they go a traditional route- particularly Harry.

    I really would have liked James Arthur Phillip to recognize both sides of the family. Or James Phillip Michael. But, maybe they’ll have another? A sister for Charlotte?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Germanic ties are more recent, but many historic British/English kings married daughters of French/Norman kings and aristocracy (I think a widow or ex-wife in one instance) For a time, it was either marry French or fight the French. Henry VIII did not marry French (he fought them) but his sister Margaret married the Duke of Burgundy. The French roots are strong, although perhaps not always celebrated.
      Anyway, according to a commenter above, Louis was originally Ludwig and subsequent Louis's were named after him. Maybe no "French Connection" at all. ok,sorry, I had to get that in somehow. ;+)

      PS I have relied strictly on memory of my English history reading and may have a fact or two skewed. Let me know.

      Delete
  21. I like the name Louis though not Arthur Charles so much. I was also hoping a Middleton name would be part of the three names, specifically Michael or Thomas (a name of Kate's ancestors). I am not surprised James didn't make the list as there are already several James' who are close relations in the family. I am very surprised that Philip isn't one of the names, as it would have nice for them to honour William's grandfather. But he's their baby so it's their decision!

    Prince Louis will grow into his name and one day we won't be able to imagine him being called by anything else :)

    ReplyDelete
  22. I hoped they would select Phillip as one of the names - Prince Phillip is up in age and would have been nice to honor him. Lewis pronounced Loo-eee sounds very informal - what we might use as a nickname here in the United States. Now I can't get that "Trading Places" movie out of my head - Lewis is the wealthy young man who is set up to look like a thief as a bet between the two rich old codgers and after that he is called Loo-eee, by the lady of ill repute who tries to help him. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it went like this - Harry: Meghan and I want to use the name Philip. You used Diana, so not fair. William- You snooze, you lose man. Harry: if you leave Philip for us, i’ll let you be my best man. William : okay then. But I bet they call him Jack as a nickname around the house.

      Delete
    2. HAHAHA!! JIC! ---Also, Louis is a featured character on Suits. Maybe Meghan had input. ;+) anon1
      Harry really did snooze there for awhile. Catch-up time!
      Does anyone else speculate that Charles refused to come home until they named the baby after his favorite people?

      Delete
    3. HAHAHA! JiC and anon1 - You're giving me a good giggle! Although, I think using Charles was definitely politically motivated after all the "ignored grandparent" whining that went on.

      Delete
  23. I quite like Louis. It has a more modern vibe - he’ll probably be called Big Loo if he is as tall as his father!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ooooohhhh, didnt think of loo. Here come all the British bathroom jokes:(

      Delete
    2. Poor babe, also named after a city in the US, but pronounced Lou-ee as a joke.

      Delete
    3. Easter Parade, Judy Garland--"Meet Me in St Louis (Lou-ee), Louis(Lou-ee) Meet Me At the Fair..." Not a joke. A fond nickname. anon1
      Jane knows this subject well, I would imagine. And thank-you for keeping the flow of conversation going today, Jane. I hope all is going well for you. anon1

      Delete
  24. Good name!I like the sound of Prince Louis.
    I personally think that they chose all their favorite boy names when they named George.Louis is his third name.

    ReplyDelete
  25. As a french, I think it's a little bit strange to name this little British Prince Louis, knowing that more than 20 french kings, during more than 1000 years, were named Louis. And also knowing that we cut the head of the last one, Louis XVI, during the french Revolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. as a French, I had the same impression. But louis is a trendy first name in France nowadays. Love it !

      Delete
  26. Thanks Jane! I can understand, and like, Louis as a nod to the Mountbatten family connection and both Philip and Charles. Perhaps they are keeping Alexander to use with child #4, Alexandra/Alexander.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Underwhelmed.... was hoping for Phillip somewhere. ...little surprised actually. LOUIS? I love old names but it is so ancient ... maybe it will grow on me in time. I was not a fan of George either but now when I look at that sweet boy? He could not be anything but...George 💜

    ReplyDelete
  28. Wow! Did not see this coming. I like the name a lot but am a little sad that this new little one has to share a name with his big brother but I'm sure they will present it as an honour instead of a slight. Lesson here: do not use all your favorite names on one child because you may be forced to repeat.

    I have to say I am surprised they went with Louis as the first name in an obvious tribute to Lord Mountbatten considering all the scandal that has come out recently regarding his personal life. Also, surprised that a Middleton name was not included for this third child. Oh well, it took me a while to love the name George and now I can't imagine him with any other, so in time Louis will feel just right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Disappointed as well. The association with Mountbatten is unfortunate (to say the least).

      Delete
    2. It really is, Jay. I'm disappointed in both parents :(

      Delete
    3. Why be disappointed? He's their son and it's their choice. Despite all the speculation we don't know why it was chosen. Perhaps they are big Louis Armstrong. Maybe they just don't like Philip or Michael or James. Or maybe Philip, Michael or James aren't keen enough on their own names and the family knows that. We have no idea.

      Delete
    4. Louise, I agree with you. It's their choice. But we all have the right to our opinions, I think.

      And, yes, he could have been named after another Louis. Perhaps the prince is named after Louis Leakey the anthropologist or Louis L'Amour the writer :)

      You're correct. We will never know for sure.

      Delete
    5. It is their baby and their choice Louise, however, associations will be made. They may just love the name or, as you suggest, have another Louis in mind but, inevitably, the name will bring up discussion about Mountbatten which I'm not sure is something they should want to do. Not only did he personify British colonialism in India but he was a sexual predator.

      Delete
  29. Perfect choice. Honoring both Prince Philip and Prince Charles.

    ReplyDelete
  30. As one of the comments above say, the only reason I am accepting of Louis is because it sounds like Philip and Charles requested Louis Mountbatten be honored.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But he *was* honored via George. I'm utterly bewildered by this name. I don't mind Arthur or Charles so much (though, *ahem* there's already Charlotte honoring Charles)...I'm just so bewildered. I cannot imagine strapping a child with the name "Louis." All I think of are fat kings or the Duck Tales. :/

      Delete
    2. Lol agreed, and perfectly said!

      Delete
  31. My one year old is named LEWIS and I’m in love with his name, but I very much dislike the name LOUIS “loo-ee” 1. I’m not French and I live in an English speaking country, so it’s like having a baby named Henry but telling everyone to say his name the French way. Weird. 2. So many bathroom jokes *faceplam*, 3. I think it’s strange to give your child the middle name of another child. Right? That’s weird. And they had to use Charles? I mean come on! Charlotte is a feminine version of Charles, so to me they ticked that box. I wish they could have used a Middleton name all like James or something else to break the mold a tinnnny bit. But, not my kid, not my prob. I feel very underwhelmed with this naming. He sure does look sweet though!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My thoughts exactly! This is baffling and disappointing. I shouldn't be disappointed with someone else's choice of names, but I can't help it. I think this is a terrible name.

      Delete
  32. I like the name as it's pronounced, but with the spelling it's 'French ness' becomes clear and I agree with the poster who said it's like naming an American kid 'Henri.' Not a fan of that aspect.

    I also am quite surprised that there is no nod to the Middleton side here; I know if Kate had wanted one then there would have been one and that it's entirely their choice. But I really wonder at her motivation for not including one. I know I'm being silly but it almost comes off as snobby to me that one wasn't included, as if Thomas or Michael wouldn't have fit with the royal pedigree that Kate is going for! I dunno, it just doesn't sit right with me.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I was hoping for John (Jack) or James (Jimmy). I wonder if Kate had different names in mind were she not married to William~~people's names are always interesting to me. Why we're you named xxx? Was your mother reading a book, or was it a name from a movie? A relative? Did she just like the way it looked when written out?

    ReplyDelete
  34. I love it! It's unusual name in these times, I haven't heard it for a while. But I love the way it sounds, it's unique. I think it's great.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I also was hoping for Philip and Michael, and hoping for no Arthur as first name (ugly name), Louis is nice but strange as it is George‘s middle name as a remembrance of Louis Mountbatten, if they want to reuse a name Alexander would have been perfect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to remind myself of King Arthur and his knights. Otherwise, all I can think of is Arthur Godfrey. anon1
      Also, for some reason I can't pronounce "Arthur." It comes out more like "author."

      Delete
  36. Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't it come to light that Lord Mountbatten was an unsavory fellow?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are not wrong!

      Delete
    2. Right? Not exactly the kind of person you want to name your kid after. Also weird to name your kid after their great-grandparent’s mentor...

      Delete
    3. Perhaps it is a whitewash attempt for the name. Replace bad memories with good. anon1

      Delete
    4. I had that exact thought, anon 1.

      Delete
    5. It wouldn't be the first time that tactic was used, Kate. anon1

      Delete
    6. That is true anon 1.

      Delete
  37. Personally, I don't love the LOO-EE pronunciation- it just makes me think of France which seems off for a british prince, but their child, their choice and I see the touching family significance. It's more odd to me that they would name him Louis when that is one of Prince George's middle names- is that common in England or within the Royal Family?

    I did think it was nice that after the DM published this nasty article about how mean Will/ Kate are to Charles they name their son after him. To me, proves how off many of those "thought" pieces can be.

    I saw a blog post guessing that the delay in the name was because William and Kate couldn't agree and both though the other would give in. This makes sense when you think about Williams statements- going from "soon" to "working on it." Not that it was a heated argument or anything, but just they couldn't decide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess it is not that weird. I share a middle name with my brother, my father. and a whole bunch of random ancestors. Haven't really thought of that before - but it is not a first name name. It is a place name that happens to be a name as well...I dunno. I really find this use of Louis odd.

      Delete
  38. I am disappointed. With all of the possibilities our there this is the best they could do. There must be some sort of family politics happening behind the scenes. Lord Louis Mountbatten wasn't even called "Louis" he was called "Dickie" for whatever reason. This whole name is a head scratcher for me. Why can't William be one of the names? I'm thinking there was a not-so-subtle nudge going on somewhere to use Charles. I also think it's a shame there isn't a Middleton name in there somewhere. So, will they call him "Louis" or "Louie" do you think? Maybe they're sucking up to the French after the whole Brexit deal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably they can't use a Middleton name because it's not royal.....In other countries happen....I wonder... Only by coincidence as Elizabeth...

      Delete
  39. As the silly aunt in my family, all I can think of is the song "Louie,Louie" by the Kingsmen playing everytime the kid walks into a room. He goes off to university, and the first song they play at the drunken bash is that one to make sure everyone in the room knows he's there. He walks into his wedding reception with his bride- the crowd goes wild when they start playing it. I can see Uncle Harry singing it to him, teasing him with it. Perhaps this kid has attitude. We'll see. Unexpected but it's growing on me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a great song, HL. Love the visuals! anon1
      Who was Lady Louise named after?

      Delete
  40. Edward was used by the Queen for two children (Andrews middle name). Not my preference but oh well. And I suppose I like it better than prince Vince (Denmark). But I wonder if Meghan Markle can’t help think of Louis Litt (suits character)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like the Prince Vincent of Danmark very much!

      Delete
  41. That's it, Robin! A sop to the French.
    For America, it is finally scheduling a visit for Trump--on Friday, the 13th of July. Wow!
    Angela Merkel is in Washington, barely missing Macron of France.
    The whole world's gone mad. Life is a carousel. anon1

    ReplyDelete
  42. I was happy when I heard the name and surprised. Wisdom prevailed I said. For me didn’t want an old fashioned name and was nervous Arthur or Albert would be it. Louis pronounced Loo-ee in NZ & Australia is considered cute & fashionable & quaint & cool all at once! The French thing isn’t an issue as it seems to be for some Brits. Fascinating that it is in both sons names. Not at all surprised about Kate’s family omission it’s not something my family cares about either. Maybe hers doesn’t!
    Welcome Prince Louis!!!

    Theresa
    Australia

    ReplyDelete
  43. I like Louie well enough, though I did hope Michael would be one of his names. I wonder if Philip didn't want them to use his name, as he doesn't like any fuss made of him. Frankly, I'm relieved the baby won't be called Arthur or Albert.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I like the name and it will definitely grow even more on me. Much as other people have said,we're so used to George and Charlotte now! I despised Arthur and had hoped for Alexander.
    It does make me wonder if they're going for a fourth and they disliked the name Arthur- at least as a first name- and used it up as a middle name this time around so next time there wouldn't be the speculation of it being used. Also, although safe as a middle name, I doubt they'd have wanted Phillip as a first name to avoid confusion of another Prince Phillip- at least while the elder is still with us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since they used Louis twice why wouldn't they use Arthur another time?

      Delete
  45. I had an uncle, my father's brother, who was named Louis, was absolutely crazy-go-nuts, and was cruel to both of his wives. For that reason I can't get behind the name.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I think Michael Louis or James Louis would have been much more 21st Century and would honor her side of the family. It's better than Arthur, though :)

    ReplyDelete
  47. I frankly love the name, but I could be partial. My middle name is Louise. :) And I don't really understand the disappointment with the name not being Alexander. Why was that name so heavily preferred? To me, this name reveals a lot. I think, Kate is very symbolic and quite honestly, after seeing that video of George sweetly putting his arm around Charlotte as they walked into the Lindo Wing, it makes me wonder how they are raising George. They're raising him to be a protector and caring...there's a lot that goes in a name, and speaking as someone that was named after another close relative, I always had a special bond with my namesake. Perhaps that is the reason they picked a name that Prince George, William, and Charles all share? This bonds the future kings in an undeniable way with the little brother that will never reign.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I don't dislike the name but does Diana's brother have a son named Loius?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As does Lord Nicolas Windsor...

      Delete
    2. Camilla has a grandson named Louis. One of Laura's twin boys. anon1

      Delete
  49. Honestly if it hadn't been for Louis being one of Georges's names - I would have been overwhelmingly in love with this name....but the repetitive use of Arthur Charles and now Louis leaves me slightly open-mouthed. These people have 2000 years of British history to drag names out of. And they seem stuck in a revolving door of Arthur (WHY???) and Charles. I tried to explain it to my husband - who really doesn't get these historical and naming nuances - and said it would be like calling our first child "Christopher George" and then our 3rd chid (who happily was a girl) "George David" Just weird.

    ReplyDelete
  50. It seems like this would have been a good time to go with a more modern name, as a nod to the future of the royals. I think the fact that Louis Mountbatten was Viceroy of India also turns me off of the name. Obviously making Philip and Charles happy was important, but why not use Louis as a middle name again and pick Nicholas, Louis's grandson who was also killed, and something that younger people aren't quite as turned off by.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EXACTLY!!! Come on royals - get some imagination. Earl Mountbatten's names were Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas. Francis was Diana Spencers middle name and would have a perfect first name Prince Francis (Arthur Charles) meh...lol

      Delete
    2. Kate's father has a brother named Nicholas. I've not read anything about the family dynamics or if Kate is close to him but that might have ruled that name out. And as I posted earlier, maybe the Middletons aren't that into naming kids after relatives. After all, they didn't name their own kids after any of their parents (except maybe James taken from one of Carole's father's two middle names.) It's also possible W&K thought they had the perfect name picked out and then the baby just didn't look like the chosen name but he did look like a Louis. It happens!

      Delete
    3. My brother's a Nicholas Alexander, Nick for short.

      It's served him well.😁

      Delete
    4. Great name! Are you from Russian heritage, by any chance? ;+) anon1

      Delete
    5. I agree, Lizzie - because first William said "soon" about a name (the day Louis was born), and then he changed that to "working on it" two days later while out with Harry.

      Delete
    6. I think the Russian question is to me?

      No Russian heritage, but (I think) my mom picked really good names for all of us. We lucked out.😉

      Anon 9:55

      Delete
    7. A very strong, yet melodic name- Nicolas Alexander. Names of the last Czars of Russia. Yes I was replying to you, Anon 9:55/7:59
      anon1

      Delete
  51. I wish we could get an explanation why they chose it (but royals never do that). I highly doubt it was to honor Mountbatten! They had no personal connection to him, and I can't see them doing it just to please Charles and Philip.

    Since they took awhile to announce it, maybe it was the only thing they could agree on. Or maybe they'd picked something else out initially, then decided it didn't suit the little guy and had to scramble. The French-ness is weird to me, as others have noted.

    Then again, if I'd had a second son, we would've taken a long time to name him! We had one boy's name that we loved and used for our first, and all the others we were meh about! So I get the sort of head scratching-esque feel of this one.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have two sons and had a slew of names ready for them.....Christopher, Timothy, Nicholas, Benjamin, Gareth, Matthew, David, George ...the list goes on and on. All classic, all as suitable in 2018 as they were in 1986 or 1899. Same with my daughter - who has 2 queenly names and a random "virtue" name thrown in there for good measure.

      So many good names. These ones disappoint me lol

      Delete
    2. Mountbatten was like a second father to Charles and was killed by an IRA bomb. So, yes, a personal connection.

      But agree, this is disappointing.

      Delete
    3. I'm aware of the Charles connection, I meant that William and Kate don't have a connection to Mountbatten themselves - they never met him and therefore were not close to him. I just don't really buy that they named their son after Charles' honorary grandfather.

      And first Anonymous here, lucky you! I had a favorite girl's name and a favorite boy's name and that was pretty much it - good thing I had one of each sex haha! Would've taken forever to name the second if it'd been the same sex.

      Delete
  52. I didn't care for the name George, but name grew on me. I was hoping for Alexander but thought wouldn't due to George middle name but I forgot middle names do get repeated. Hence Louis. But these names chosen must be significant to them. It's neat that Louis is middle name of both William and George. Then there is Diana brother Charles, Earl Spencer, who has a son named Louis and a daughter Charlotte Diana. So names chosen are tie ins to Spencer side, too, including the coincidence to Charles name. I do like the French pronunciation. Guess the little guy name will grow on me as well. It's fun reading everyone input.

    ReplyDelete
  53. 😒 I love George and Charlotte's names. This one.... so not a fan. Disappointed. K and W had a winning streak going there in the name department.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. O agree. Its almost as if they had already used up all the names they liked with George and had to scramble to come up with something. Maybe they weren't planning on another boy.

      Delete
    2. The thought of them expecting the baby to be a girl occurred to me as well.I think that is one of the reasons behind the name announcement time delay.But this is just speculation!

      Delete
  54. I read today that Charles Spencer (Diana's brother) already has two children named Louis and Charlotte

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they ever have another kid,perhaps,the Bookies should take a look at the names of Charles Spencer’s kids’ names:-)

      Delete
    2. Ha! Candice! Somewhere, someone who bet on the name Louis is riding high. I think the odds against it were huge. anon1.

      Delete
  55. His name is just perfect.

    ReplyDelete
  56. IMO W+K got it right this time(minus the Arthur)!I did not care for either George or Charlotte.Especially,the choice of Charlotte as their daughter’s name disappointed me.I had been hoping for an Alice that time.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I would be so embarrassed as Kates stylist by people drawing comparisons between Kates dress and the dress worn by Mia Farrow in Rosemarys baby... of ALL the movies to accidentally evoke....

    Rosemarys dress: https://goo.gl/images/9FkVFD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree. The dress comparison is brutal. I am sure Kate is very disappointed to have those first pics connected to a horror film. I can’t “unsee” that white lace collar whenever a Lindo photo of Kate and Louis appears in the news. So sorry Kate...

      Delete
    2. The dress choice is very unfortunate. To be honest, I didn’t really like it anyway. Gives me a “house dress” vibe. The name is not great either. I already see folks struggling with the possessive — writing Louises and Louis’s instead of Louis’— wish it was Arthur. And whst’s Up with using the exact two names of your first cousins, Louis and Charlotte Spencer?

      Delete
    3. Oh my gosh!! That makes me sad. I'll choose to only think of that dress as Kate's and try to erase that horrible image out of my mind!

      Delete
    4. It's possible the designer copied the dress as just a vintage dress not realizing it had appeared in that movie. The lace is close to an exact copy of the lace pattern Mia wore.

      Delete
  58. I'm really quite surprised by all the negative reaction here. I'm English, and my first thought was that it's a nice name, and I much prefer it to Arthur. I'd be interested to know if the negative opinions are coming from non-British people, as I haven't spoken to anyone in real life here who dislikes it. Louis is a fairly usual name in the UK. Both my sons, now aged 15 and 19, each had 2 boys called Louis in their classes in both primary school and high school, and my friend has just called her newborn baby Louis too. It's certainly not in the top 10 most used boys names, but I'm sure it's been in the top 100 for at least the last 20 years. The usual pronunciation is Louie, although Lewis is sometimes used too. It is nothing like calling a child Henry and pronouncing it Henri, because that just doesn't happen here, whereas most people in the UK have probably met at least one person called Louis, and wouldn't particularly consider it a French name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anon 9:13- I appreciate a viewpoint from an English commenter. (interesting to me that you call yourself English, rather than British)
      My take on the general drift of the comments is an expression of disappointment that a Middleton-based name was not given. Not so much a dislike of the name Louis. Others prefer other names, such as Alexander. I really don't think there was a consensus of dislike of the name "Louis," as there was with "Arthur." anon1
      PS- I am so glad I can share my opinions and thoughts here, as my e-mail has been messed up again and I usually have friends who are fellow Kate admirers to chat with- one of them British, one Spanish, so I get a fairly well-rounded viewpoint

      PPS I think this blog is definitely real life. I also think most responders re: "Louis" are probably American because this is an American-based blog-(that didn't come out right-I just meant it was more likely, although we are blessed with opinions from many countries here); however, the name has been a popular one in the USA, more so in the past, with Louie being considered an affectionate sort of nickname for Lou-us, not as a French version of the name. Many names from entertainment--Louie Prima, Louie Armstrong. Then there is the ever popular Huey, Dewey, and Louie. Ha! anon1

      Delete
    2. I too am English/British, though I was surprised that Catherine's family names don't seem to be considered, I don't think it really matters as it is his maternal grandparents who seem to play a large part in the children's lives. It was Mrs. Middleton who picked George up from school. I know which I would prefer.
      I think it lovely that the new little one shares a name with daddy and big brother. draws hi straight into the family midst.
      The name Louis is not that unusual, but here in the North of England it often gets sounded as Lewis. It is certainly popular with the Royal Family.
      Within a short time he will fit his name to perfection.

      Delete
    3. I'm Canadian, but of British descent. I only pronounce the name Louis in the British way, not the *s* ending that Americans seem to prefer. I think it is a great name - what I don't like in this instance is the recycling of 3 or 4 names over and over again. Charles Arthur and Louis. It is so boring, I'm not saying they should have called baby "Max" or "Jackson" or "Noah" but Richard, Thomas, John, Edmund, James etc are all great choices and have royal provenance - as do Michael and Nicholas.

      I wonder if the Cambridges are aware of the stir this name has caused in royal-watching circles?

      Delete
    4. I'm American and always pronounce it "Louis," even when referring to St. Louis ("Saint Louie Mizzurrah!") and don't know anyone who pronounces "Louis" as "Lewis" outside of that particular name. I personally am disappointed with the name because they've already got a "Charles" via Charlotte and a Louis via George. I was hoping for some originality. Seems quite strange to me that they would recycle two names.

      Delete
    5. Although...isn't it "The Spirit of St. Louis, " Lou-us, not Louie...that was Charles Lindbergh's plane? Very big part of Americana. I saw it displayed at the Smithsonian-or perhaps a replica. anon1

      Delete
    6. Anon1 ,those friends must be a bit worried, especially the British one if they can't keep in touch with you.

      Sol

      Delete
    7. Sol--I hope not. They know the drill. The incoming works, just not the outgoing mail. So I can still get all those lovely phone product commercials masquerading as important updates. Ha! anon1

      Delete
    8. anon1, definitely the Spirit of St. Louis (pronounced Lewis) for Lindbergh's plane. And I don't know anyone who pronounces St. Louis as Louie unless using it as a nickname or quoting a song. But, as we are American and not the British parents who named their child we will go with however they pronounce it. Besides, Louis pronounced the French way sounds much better with a British accent than with an American accent. Strange to give this little guy a name that could be pronounced two different ways depending where he is likely to travel. I do have to agree, the names Arthur and Charles have been way overused. But, I think they were trying to please everyone and I think the easily offended PoW was certainly a huge factor. He's had his "crowd" active in mentioning how he didn't see the children much and all of a sudden we started hardly seeing a Middleton grandparent photo unless they went to something high profile like Wimbledon. I don't think using Louis in George's name was a good enough nod for him. Pretty soon, though, this little baby will be every bit a Louis(ie) as Harry is Harry and George is George.

      Delete
    9. HAha! actually Harry is Henry... ;+) Robin, I do agree with your sentiment-the parents should be able to name their children in a way that is meaningful to them personally. Louis may be as Henry and be known popularly and at home by a form of Louis (maybe not Lou or Lew, as in Lew Ayers) or by a nickname or middle name--Artie? Chuck?. It just stuck me funny that Camilla also has a grandchild named Louis. It must involve more than just being a familiar British name. It's allover the royal family and aristocracy and they aren't all named after Ludwig.

      The reported complaints from Charles about not seeing his grandchildren may have been media hype and attempts to drum up business ( if so, they succeeded) OR based in truth. I always recall "Father's Little Dividend" with Spencer Tracy when inter-grandparent relationships are involved. There was fretting and fuming over naming and who gets to see baby more. It is normal. What isn't normal is the magnification and exploitation by the press. So even if Charles did mention something off hand about wanting to spend more time etc., it may not have been a serious complaint. (he really is known for throwing out remarks without apparent thought about how they would be received)

      However, I also consider the possibility that the rumor of in-fighting and power struggles in the royal family..not just a grandparent kerfuffle.. may be based in fact and this could have been a purposeful plant in the press. The Queen's chauffeuring Carole around the Balmoral grounds came not long after that ruckus- there may be some truth to the reports of Charles's displeasure.. HM may not give press conferences to clarify situations and opinions but somehow the royal message comes through at some point. The Queen's recent wearing of the ruby necklace Catherine recently wore?

      I think Granny Carole could use a break with the school, park, playground shuttle. Perhaps it isn't in Camilla's job description; although, she is certainly a hands-on Granny with Laura's children. There are a number of happy family photos of C&C with Laura's children. It was Camilla's granddaughter, Eliza, Charles was holding on the balcony on William's wedding day. A non-verbal statement, if there ever was one. I think the time is ripe for an informal Charles and sons and families photo-op, showing real affection and good will. We will have the formal wedding pictures but that isn't enough to shut down the constant rumors of ill-will.
      Perhaps a family picnic? anon1

      Delete
    10. Here's where I get annoyed with Prince Charles. As many people have reported, he doesn't particularly like small children for long periods of time. There are reportedly many weekends that Camilla spends by herself in her house in Wiltshire (I think?), so she can see her grandchildren and spend time with them. Charles supposedly stays at Clarence House , Highgrove, or one of his homes in Scotland, because he needs a lot of alone time. He's not really a hands-on grandfather.

      I think Charles' problem is more that the PUBLIC senses this also, and he's insecure about that (even though he doesn't really want to pitch in as much as the Middletons do).

      Delete
    11. anon1, I remember when they announced Harry's (Henry's) name I didn't like it at all. When they said they would call him "Harry" I thought that made it even worse! But, now I can't imagine him as anything else so I'm sure this will happen with Louis.

      I am not sure it would set well with William and Harry (no matter how cordial the relationship) nor the general public if Camilla was seen playing the doting grandma with Diana's grandchildren. That's a stone much better left unturned. Within the confines of palace walls is one thing but out in public would be a disaster. Nobody much cares (well, maybe Andrew Parker Bowles) if Charles is seen with Camilla's grandkids.

      As to the complaints about Charles not seeing the grandkids enough, I think they're probably true. It's been pretty much acknowledged in both camps that C&D used their friends to put their gripes out in the press for them. I'm sure it's still a viable technique employed by the PoW. After that whole "situation" William went to some event I can't remember and greeted his father with a kiss on the cheek. Then there was a series of Charles & Camilla greeting Kate with cheek kisses. It all looked terribly awkward and forced as they've never displayed that type of relationship before or since. It would be better to ignore the press claims than to force unnatural behavior. The Queen is far better at those subtleties than Charles will ever be.

      Delete
    12. You have an excellent point, Robin, about the image of Camilla cavorting with the Cambridge kids. Yikes!
      I think that kiss event was at a military memorial in France or Belgium or somewhere. Isn't it the one where Charles flew in from vacationing on a yacht in the Greek Islands or somewhere wearing a rumpled white suit? My theory was it was a last minute set up as I thought William was to have been the royal rep. There definitely needs to be something felt by the two and not just a PR ploy.
      However, APB was as much the "wounded party" as Diana was. We SHOULD feel the same about images of Charles cuddling Andrew's grandchildren. We don't because we have made Diana an icon and her children are Princes of the realm.
      I think Charles may simply feel uncomfortable around Diana's grandchildren. We know that he regrets his actions, or at least the fall-out there-of, from his statements at the church ceremony with Camilla. I thought for awhile that he was just one of those people who are uncomfortable around children; there are too many stories (Camilla's) and photos of him relaxing and smiling with his wife's grandchildren--one of whom was named Louis---to credit that theory. I think he may avoid the Cambridge children while realizing his avoidance looks bad, which results in his blaming William via leaks. I think William may do a little of the same avoidance.
      There really needs to be a Charles and sons family picnic that is more than just for show, before the apparent ill-feeling leeches into the next generation and into his other son's family. There was some awkward cheek kissing going on at the ANZAC service, too, in my opinion. When have we ever seen such an obvious display in a greeting? Well, there is the William/Charles event and Anne's exaggerated curtsey to the Spanish monarch with the awkward one cheek or two incident. I am not sure about the Eugenie/Kate greeting in NYC. It looked sincere. At least they were smiling. There is a sweet photo of Harry kissing his grandmother. She has a smile that says it all- That's how affectionate cheek kisses are done.
      Camilla doesn't have to be photographed cuddling the Cambridge tots. I would hope that there would also be a picnic in private with Charles and both his and his wife's children and grandchildren. The picnic set up may sound ludicrous,but the Queen and Phillip reportedly had many a family picnic/barbeque at Balmoral on the veranda and there are family photos of Phillip flipping a freshly-caught fish on the grill.

      By the way, didn't Charles say something in his remarks on Louis's birth about not being able to keep up with all his grandchildren? He has three. He must have been including his wife's, which is a normal, loving thing to do; but not to the exclusion of one's own. That remark has curious echoes to me of William's comments about a third child. anon1

      Delete
    13. The saddest part about all of this is that everything is recorded in the press forever and that little boy may grow up and read that there was speculation about his dad not wanting a third and his grandpa enjoying step grandchildren more than his own. The press takes no consideration of these things while plying their wares to make a buck.

      Delete
    14. At the risk of appearing to take sides on the Charles/Diana question (& I'm really not doing that here) I remember Will said in a Diana remembrance something about wanting his children to know they have two grandmothers, meaning Carole and Diana. I can understand why Camilla as a step-grandmother would not have been mentioned. She might not have been mentioned *even if* there hadn't been the past history. But if Camilla's children are willing for Charles to function as a grandfather to their children it makes sense he would think of them as his grandchildren and be close to them. In ordinary life with the increasing prevalance of blended families when grandchildren are part of the picture many people don't treat their "blood" grandparents/grandchildren and step-grandparents/step-grandchildren differently, at least not openly. If Will isn't willing for Camilla to function as a "grandmother" on a regular basis even behind the scenes, that must complicate things for Charles's relationship with the children. And yes, I know people will say it's Charles & Camilla's own fault. I'm not taking a position on what did or didn't happen more than a quarter of a century ago in the 1980s/90s. But I do think W&K's children would benefit from also having a relationship with Charles & Camilla.

      It will be interesting to see what happens if/when H&M have children.

      Delete
    15. Hopefully, Robin, George will read of this through the eyes of a mature adult. I don't think it compares to what he will have to read about his grandfather, Grandmother Diana, and the second wife. Not judging, truly; but William and especially Harry, experienced this as a child, without the perspective of years and experience and carried that child's perspective into adulthood.anon1

      Delete
    16. lizzie...perhaps a family picnic/barbeque?
      Speaking of Bygones...at an anon1 family funeral recently, the deceased's present wife posed for a photo with his two ex-wives and all three mourned together. Let's hope it won't take another funeral to bring reconciliation for this family.

      Delete
  59. I wonder if all these names that honor Charles, including the Mountbatten, were to appease him. Especially since he can't even be bothered to leave his vacation house and come to London and see the baby. How crazy is that????

    Re: the Mountbatten, Prince Phillip wanted that name used as the "last" name for the royal family when he married the Queen. There was a big row about it. For awhile, some of their kids used Mountbatten. The youngest even gave an interview saying their family was the Mountbattens... very touchy subject.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the "official name" became Mountbatten-Windsor but they don't use the Mountbatten part of the name.

      Delete
    2. Robin-I just re-visited Jane's April 29, 2015 wedding post. So beautiful! I even read some of the comments and was amused to see one from you where you mentioned an US mag story that proclaimed that April 23 was her real due date and that she was six days over. What is it about the fixation with that date? Maybe they were looking ahead? ;+)

      Also, the video of Catherine and her Father entering the cathedral. Two things caught my eye. First, (I'm a lip-reader) I thought Michael turned to her and said, "Are you all right?" And then "Here we are!" Was there anything in the news at the time about what he said? I wasn't following her at the time of the wedding, but I think I saw a few comments I wrote on that post in 2015.
      Second, I wonder if little Charlotte has seen the wedding video? Kate's last turn, smile and wave before entering the church....we saw it again on the steps of the Lindo Wing. anon1

      Delete
    3. You're right, that little turn around and wave move has become something of a Middleton move since Pippa did it at her wedding as well. Maybe they're just so polite that they want to give that last little wave and Charlotte is the same way! I did just re-watch the ceremony part of the wedding but maybe I need to go back a little more.

      Interesting about the April 23 date. I had forgotten that!

      I don't remember seeing anything about what they said at the time of the wedding but I did read that while on the steps of the Lindo wing with Louis Kate said to William that it was quite windy and she didn't want him to get cold or something to that effect. I had a feeling that's why they didn't stay out there longer. Perfectly understandable. I love when the lip readers get involved!

      Delete
    4. A Middleton move..:+) I forgot about Pippa.

      Actually, I think the move originated with a WWII pin-up of Betty Grable. ;+) It IS just a little bit flirty. At first, I thought Princess Charlotte would be the calm, sensible one. Then she does that. Still calm but a little flirty, too. She will manage the media with charm. I should have seen it with the flowers.
      I guess that was my happy birthday tribute to the little princess.

      A few of us more seasoned commenters will appreciate that Betty Grable remark. Or TCM fans. The rest will be scratching their heads--"Say what?" Thank-goodness for the internet treasure trove of trivia. I am sure it is there somewhere. anon1

      Delete
  60. I think I've found a previously unseen photo of Kate! Photographer for Natasha Archer's wedding just posted link to the wedding photos on Instagram, and there's one that sure looks like the Duchess. What do you think? https://kirstenmavric.co.uk/chateau-rigaud-wedding-chris-and-tash/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just looked through the pictures. That was such a stunning wedding. I've seen some of the pictures before, but it still wows me. I assume you refer to the brunette half way through who is pictured in profile. I did a double take, too, but Kate's arms are a little different. You can see the same woman in a number of other pictures, and it is definitely not Kate. Thanks for sharing this link, though, I loved scrolling through more photos of that wedding!

      Delete
    2. I agree with Jane that looks like Kate at first but not upon further inspection. Still, such a stunning wedding! The lace on her dress was exquisite! I also like how she was able to restyle the same dress with a couple of small (but blingy) changes for the evening. The tables with the long white cloths and the overlay of the fabric with the posys was right up my ally. The greens down the center with the candles and the little sprigs of pink astilbe in small vases was so perfect for that French country wedding. Lovely!

      Delete
    3. Lovely photos. I wonder how it felt for Chris Jackson to be on the other side of the camera. Perhaps he took a few photos himself, especially of the bride.

      Delete
  61. A few days late here, but just wanted to chime in. Louis was not at all on my radar, but I think it's cute...as an American who knows the difference between Louis & Lewis. I was so excited about the gender reveal as well as the name reveal, but not so much so to actually be disappointed or perplexed the way that some people seem to express. It's fun and all but not my kid, so...whatever.

    The only thing that I really wonder is why D+DOC have continually only used three names total for the children instead of four. It's definitely more streamlined, but I wonder what their thought-process is on that.

    Also, being that they aren't your average nuclear family, why are people so surprised that Middleton names aren't being used? Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't surprise me at all that the names are generally a nod to BRF. Anyway, that's all!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stephanie, the Queen named three of her four children with names of BRF monarchs. The fourth, she apparently named after her spouse's Greek side of the family. At least, I can't think of any other first-named Andrews in the BRF side of the family. Certainly no British monarchs. I see no precedent against the Middleton side being recognized. That family has some names in common with the BRF, but there are names from the Lupton branch-especially Kate's three ancestors who were killed in WWI. Still, I agree. Their choice. I think the possibility that it was not completely their choice may be behind some of the complaints about the name. anon1

      Delete
  62. I love the name. The name of eighteen French kings! They all have one nickname attached to their name, summarizing their life engagement. This little Louis gets to have one.
    Have a nice day
    Montaine

    ReplyDelete
  63. I've been doing a bit of research on ye olde Louis Mountbatten, and made a few interesting discoveries re names. His father was known as Louis (he had Alexander as a middle name) and his older brother was George (he had Louis as a middle name). Getting the picture here, folks?

    Little Louis Arthur Charles seems to be named for his father, his paternal grandfather, his paternal grandfather's idol, Louis Mountbatten, the idol's father and older brother, and of course, little Louis' very own big brother. Not to mention that, when a last name is required, as when some British Royals take legal action in a court of law--this we learned when William's last name showed up on a French legal document as Mountbatten-Windsor--little Louis will use the name Louis Mountbatten-Windsor.

    I've about had it with the whole Louis Mountbatten name nonsense and, since the idol was deceased prior to William's birth, it seems a reasonably safe bet to assume that Charles had a great deal of input into naming both of William and Kate's sons and that the male children's mother had absolutely no say...nor am I certain that William had much say.

    I now pronounce Charles the fox has taken over the BRF chicken coop...and God help the chickens, the royal roosters, and anyone else who gets in his way. (Let's see now...he managed to demolish Sir Christopher and his own father has headed for the hills. Who's next, I wonder?

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I enjoy your posts alot JC but I just don't agree with the increasingly prevalent idea that Charles determined Will's children's names (except I guess no one is arguing Charles was responsible for Diana being used in Charlotte's name!) It seems to me George's first name honors the  Queen's father and Charlotte's first name honors Pippa (although one can claim a nod to Charles also.) There have been multiple reported instances of Will resisting Charles's requests--- like turning down any involvement in The Prince's Trust, the separate office set-up and so forth. At least from the outside these days it often seems like if Charles says black, Will automatically says white. So I just can't see Will going along with pressure from Charles to give his children FIRST names he himself did not want to use. I don't know how much input Kate had--at times it looks like she may not have much when Will makes up his mind but none of us know how they make decisions within their marriage. And it certainly appears Kate, not Will, is the one who initially wanted a 3rd child. I do think there are lots of plausible reasons the baby wasn't given a Middleton name that have nothing to do with Charles.The fact that Pippa's pregnancy was known before Kate delivered might have affected Kate's preferences as well (esp if Pippa is expecting a boy.) Plus, there might have been a desire to avoid having a second Prince Michael in the family. And if W&K really didn't know they were having a boy (not sure I buy that!) maybe they were more settled on girl names. Finally, the bookies could have been right in the prediction of Albert & the baby just didn't end up fitting the name.

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure I agree that Charles is telling them what to name the baby but I do feel his particular tendency toward whining keeps them ever vigilant about his easily hurt feelings. After all, he will be the monarch and he could make their lives miserable. I believe William pushes back as much as he can while Granny is still around to back him up. It's clear that he and Harry want to be their own people without Papa constantly interfering.

      Delete
  64. The difference now, Lizzie, is that, by the time of little Louis' birth, Charles' star had risen in the Royal Firm-ament. And the second Cambridge son's name speaks for itself; there is, of course, still room to speculate that George Alexander Louis' name/s were chosen to honour the Queen's father and one of William's Spencer cousins, and that George's other middle names also honoured Spencer cousins.

    As for Charlotte, I think her first name was meant to honour both Charles and Pippa. Etc. There are plenty of possibilities to go round in the naming of George and Charlotte. And some other possibilities even when it comes to little Louis. After all, Arthur shows up in King George VI's name, Charles' name, and William's name.

    Nevertheless, the use of Louis twice and the use of Charles twice--since Charlotte is the clearest feminine derivative--pushes me in the direction I mentioned above. I also am of the opinion that, in the Firm, and despite the Queen's recent Letters Patent guaranteeing equal primogeniture, boys are rather more important in some Royal eyes. So having secured Charlotte as a first name, perhaps that was good enough for Charles, assuming that my theory, as mentioned in another post, is correct. Further, Charles--and the Queen--would have to be a certifiable ogres to deny a man the right to honour his mother by giving it to his daughter.

    This business of naming royal children so close to the throne is not left up to the parents; never has been, as you must know. My view is that parents may express their wishes, which may, or may not be taken into account.

    Now that Charles is in charge of the Firm, and Lizzie, I do think so, everything has to be passed through him. I gather that you like Charles, whereas I don't; this will inevitably lead to disagreements between us, from time-to-time, and I have no problem with that. I enjoy your posts, too.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct JC we seem to have very different views of Charles so we likely will disagree at times. I'm not sure I'd say I "like him" but I do think he's gotten some unfair criticism particularly re: his parenting in years past. Even Diana (who I liked very much despite her human flaws) said he was a good father. And from her own accounts we know she endeavored to be the "fun parent" at Charles's expense during the marriage. And I am tired of hearing things brought up like the ancient toothpaste/staff tale that only happened because he had a broken collarbone--it was hardly a daily occurrence. I also don't see Charles (so far) holding Will on a too-tight leash financially. He ponied up plenty for renovations and furnishings at Amner Hall. To me, Kate certainly seems to have a sufficient clothing budget although I personally think it's not always been well-spent on some of the bespoke and  semi-bespoke one-off outfits she's worn. I also don't care for her extensive collection of Kiki jewelry but that might be what she prefers for her personal jewelry rather than an effect of a tight budget (that stuff isn't that cheap anyway!) I admit I'd like to see Will wear something besides blue suits and casual trousers that are much too tight for my taste, but I really don't think a too-small clothing allowance is to blame for that. But I also think Charles sometimes acts like a horse's you-know-what.

      I do know naming royal children is a big deal. But I'd think naming the 2nd son and the 3rd Cambridge child in line for succession would be less of a big deal in royal circles than naming George. And certainly not as big a deal to Charles as naming William or Harry. And Diana claimed she over-ruled Charles on their names--- she claimed he wanted Arthur or Albert (not Louis) as *first* names but she thought they sounded "too old." I think if he felt strongly about those names and was able to be dictatorial re: Will's children we'd have seen one or both of those names in George's name somewhere or one of them instead of Louis as a first name for Will's 2nd son. But that's obviously speculation as none of us know.

      Delete
  65. Maybe they're just fans of One Direction

    ReplyDelete
  66. I still would like to know where Camilla's having a grandchild named Louis before George's birth fits into this. Did Charles encourage THAT?
    SO far, it just sounds like normal family politics, except it is being done under the prism of the press and magnified by the royal association. anon1
    PS-I just had to say that. I will now butt out of this particular side discussion of the naming of Louis. anon1
    PPS By the way, lizzie-I do think there has been some byplay and tit for tatting going on but the evidence (depending on whether you credit tabloid gossip or KP PR as being the more reliable), the evidence on KP is undeniable. Harry has been heavily promoted over William by KP for at least a year and we know who does the funding and at least some of the hiring for KP...Charles, possibly on the advice and consent of his wife. There may soon be another George VI/Queen (mother) Elizabeth power behind the throne scenario- the specter of which would alarm several in the RF at the very least. It would be poetic justice on steroids to have the great granddaughter of Edward VII's mistress take her place as an anointed Queen at the side of the great grandson of her paramour.

    And I agree, JC, I think Charles has the upper hand at this point. His taking over for HM at the Cenotaph, with the Queen on the balcony and Phillip looking on, was the sounding of the knell for me. Phillip soon after made appearances that refuted the Phillip on his last legs story. AND all those leaked stories about some royals getting too much attention-and all those goings and comings of high-ranking staff.
    I think it is possible that this promotion of Harry and unprecedented inclusion of his fiancé in RF doings could serve as a warning to William to yield to Charles's plans--not unlike the suspected shenanigans going on with the Queen regarding Camilla's future title in the run-up to the change in monarch. There is the package deal aspect to Charles's becoming king that is enough to intimidate both Queen and Parliament into going along with Charles.

    In short, it is a tangled web of actions, reactions, and interactions-some of which we'll never see- and there is rarely a simple answer.anon1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree it's likely complicated anon1. Even many ordinary families are!

      Delete
  67. Good afternoon, Jane -
    I think Kate and Will did a wonderful job of naming their newest little prince, but I am wondering if you can explain why George and Louis share a name. Is that a common tradition for the monarchy or Britons in general? I have never met anyone who shared a name with their sibling so it's an interesting concept for me.
    Thank you!

    ReplyDelete

The rules for commenting are simple: be polite. Please be respectful of the BRF/Middletons, even in criticism; please be respectful of your fellow readers, even in disagreement. Vulgarity will disqualify a comment.

Debate is welcome, direct and personal insults are not. Topics we tend to avoid here: "does Kate work enough?" and "Is Kate too skinny?" Everything is subject to approval.

I (Jane Barr) moderate all comments. If a comment is live, I approved it. If you find something offensive, or think my approval was an error, please email me at princesskateblog(at)gmail.com.

At times, an acceptable comment just goes missing. If you think your comment should have been approved, but it did not show up within five hours, again, pop an email to the above address.

Happy chatting!