If the Royal baby is a girl, should the name 'Jacinta' be one of its names?!

[ahinton]

Isn't it high time for the thread title to be changed in the light of the news that has been issued?

[Pabmusic]

Isn't it high time for the thread title to be changed in the light of the news that has been issued?

I don't know. There's just a chance they'll name the baby Jacinta.

[ahinton]

I don't know. There's just a chance they'll name the baby Jacinta.

Yes,l I suppose that this is true; I confess that I'd not thought of that.

[Mary Chambers]

As was Elizabeth of Glamis, the new baby's great-great grandmother.

I thought she was Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, daughter of the Earl of Strathmore.

[Pabmusic]

I thought she was Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, daughter of the Earl of Strathmore.

Yes, absolutely. But she was not a member of the royal family and therefore a (not so) commoner. You'll find her described that way quite often. She was the first non-royal married to a monarch since I don't know when.

She was, of course an aristocrat. So was Diana. But I don't think the Duchess of Cambridge was.

[burning dog]

Mrs. William Windsor was described as "middle class" on R4 today. Possibly true in the strict sense but Americans seem to use that term to describe anyone who has a job and doesn't live in a housing project and this definition is one increasingly used in the UK.

[amateur51]

George has been the favourite at the bookies from the beginning (and a very nice name it is too) but I think James has to be there and, if anyone asked me - which they won't - I'd also go for Louis or Alexander.

(I saw a documentary a few weeks ago in which it was stated that Charles wanted William to be called Arthur and Harry to be Albert ...... luckily Diana put her foot down)

And then so did Henri Paul and the rest is history

[Mary Chambers]

She was, of course an aristocrat. So was Diana. But I don't think the Duchess of Cambridge was.

Definitely not. Her parents made a lot of money 'in trade'. When I was young, a long time ago, there were schools near us in Cheshire that did not accept pupils whose fathers were in trade. English snobbery is an astonishing thing sometimes. Something must have changed a lot for someone like Kate to be considered acceptable as a future queen and mother of a future king.

[amateur51]

Prince Duwayne has a nice contemporary ring about it

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Prince Duwayne has a nice contemporary ring about it

With a contemporary "take" on his great-uncle's name added? Duwayne Eddie?

[Richard Tarleton]

She was the first non-royal married to a monarch since I don't know when.

Queen Victoria was (almost certainly) not royal, and therefore a commoner, until she became Queen.

[Sir Velo]

Definitely not. Her parents made a lot of money 'in trade'. When I was young, a long time ago, there were schools near us in Cheshire that did not accept pupils whose fathers were in trade. English snobbery is an astonishing thing sometimes. Something must have changed a lot for someone like Kate to be considered acceptable as a future queen and mother of a future king.

Probably decided that she would inject welcome new genes into the bloodline. "Good looking gal; looks a healthy, well bred sort, what?"

[amateur51]

With a contemporary "take" on his great-uncle's name added? Duwayne Eddie?

Splendid, simply splendid

[Pabmusic]

Queen Victoria was (almost certainly) not royal, and therefore a commoner, until she became Queen.

Yes, I'm sure I read another post of yours about this. How sure are you about this (it's not well known, is it?)

[Richard Tarleton]

Yes, I'm sure I read another post of yours about this. How sure is you about this (it's not well known, is it?)

It's the balance of probabliities. See mine above about the likelihood of Edward, Duke of Kent being sterile.

On the genetic front:

1. Queen Victoria was a carrier for haemophilia. There are two possible explanations for this. One is that she inherited it from a parent. The medical history of her mother was traced back through seventeen generations, with no cases of haemophilia. It was not present in the Hanoverians. Therefore, either it was a genetic mutation (chances of between 1 in 25,000 and 1 in 100,000 per generation), or she inherited it from her father, whoever he was.

2. Porphyria (which we all know George lll suffered from) had been prevalent in the royal family for several generations and stopped abruptly with Victoria. It is a dominant gene, so all who carry it display its symptoms, however mildly - flatulence, colic, itchy skin, constipation, discoloured urine. In other words, Victoria did not inherit it from her supposed father, Edward Duke of Kent, who carried the dominant gene, inherited from his father (George lll), nor did she pass it on to her children.

I have yet to hear any refutation or counter-argument to AN Wilson's fascinating analysis. I daresay it's one of those topics that's just too embarrassing to discuss, and the participants are hardly likely to submit to DNA tests (not quite sure who would have to be tested).