If Prince William & Kate have a girl, will they name her ‘Elizabeth Diana’?

These are some new photos of Duchess Kate and Prince William at yet another Jubilee event in England earlier today. Kate is wearing the same Missoni coat that she wore on March 1st of this year, during a photo-op with Camilla and the Queen in London. I think the hat might be new, though. You can read more about the royal trip here.

In other royal news, the bulk of Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations died down last week, and immediately following it, there was immediate speculation about when the UK might be able to “celebrate” another blessed royal event: a new royal heir, perchance? Prince William and Duchess Kate’s first wedding anniversary has come and gone without a pregnancy announcement, and earlier this year, royal “sources” were tamping down expectations for a 2012 announcement. It really seemed like we were going to have to wait until well into 2013 for Wills n’ Katie Baby.

But! Now the pregnancy gossip has begun anew. In Touch Weekly made Kate’s phantom duchess-bump their cover last week, and an eyewitness (to the Jubilee, not the conception) told In Touch: “We thought at first it might be just the way her dress fell as she walked… But if you looked closely, it was a definite bump. It was prominent enough to cast a shadow below. She certainly has a glow in her cheeks. Her face is more rounded — and so is her bottom.” Gross. Jubilee bystanders were checking out the roundness of Kate’s butt. Okay, NOW I feel bad for her. When she married Will, she signed on for endless speculation about her womb, but discussing the roundness of her bottom is a gossip bridge too far, in my opinion.

Now there’s a new report that suggests that Queen Elizabeth is actively encouraging Kate and Will to get off the proverbial sixpence and actually get down to some good, old-fashion royal-baby-making. And Will and Kate already have a name picked out for a little girl!

Now that Queen Elizabeth‘s jubilee is over, the royal couple can focus on becoming parents! A new report says Prince William and Kate Middleton are so excited about being a mummy and daddy they’ve already decided on a baby name if they have a girl!

“If it’s a girl her middle names will be Elizabeth after Wills’ grandmother and Diana after his mother,” said a source to UK publication Now.

The report also says that Queen Elizabeth has been pressuring the Will, 29, and Kate, 30, to have an heir.

“The Queen’s told Kate to make starting a family a priority,” the source continued. ”She’s also told William not to let Royal duties get in the way of a family and his happiness.”

[From Hollywood Life]

I’ve gone back and forth on the idea of William naming a potential daughter “Diana”. Obviously, he loved his mother a great deal, and I have no issue with William using “Diana” as a middle name. But if he and Kate use “Diana” for a little girl’s first name, I think it will end up being terribly unfair for the little girl. That’s a lot of baggage to give a child, you know? But if they use the names “Elizabeth Diana” for the middle names…? Again, I have no issue with “Elizabeth” as a middle name. It would be nice if they broke out and used a first name that’s never appeared in the royal family, like Princess Anne did when she named Zara (which is a name I personally adore). I also think it would be nice for Kate and Will to make a reference to the Middleton side of the family too – like, “Princess Elizabeth Diana Carole”. Or better yet, “Princess Carys Elizabeth Diana Carole”. Yes, it would be great if they gave their children Welsh names.

And we haven’t even discussed potential boy names? Phillip Charles William? Arthur Henry William Charles? Something like that. Don’t think they’ll name a boy “Noah” or “Cullen”. They won’t.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

138 Responses to “If Prince William & Kate have a girl, will they name her ‘Elizabeth Diana’?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Ella says:

    She must go through an eyeliner pencil each week! Love the coat though.

  2. Abby says:

    I see no bump. As someone who cheered when they got engaged and got up at 3 am to watch their wedding, I’ll be super happy when they do have a baby though. And interested in what their baby names are. :-)

  3. Katie says:

    Her hairline and her blush line are the same in that first picture and it kind of looks like her hair is pulling her face into a smile. Maybe that’s just me…

  4. LeeLoo says:

    She did sign up for this but… her poor womb. It must suck having a bunch of people looking in her crotch constantly to see if she is pregnant. I always suspect that The Monarchy is still medevial in how they check for pregnancy.

    I am all for having Henry IX if it is a boy. Why should our final memories of Henry of England be of the Eighth Henry?

    Personally, I think Wils and Kate naming a girl Diana is a great idea and would do wonders for The Institution and would be popular with the people. Naming the girl in memory of Wils’ beloved mother doesn’t mean she is inheriting the memories or the personality of the deceased person. I also think the British people would be very sensitive to that in this child’s case.

  5. mln76 says:

    I’m no Royal expert but since the child would be the eventual heir to the throne (in a day many of us won’t ever see considering the long life expectancy of the Windsor clan) won’t they have to go with something traditional from older royalty? I think Zara was named so unusually specifically because Princess Anne had decided to raise the children as commoners therefore didn’t have to take a traditional name.
    I kind of doubt they’d name a girl Elizabeth though.

  6. Loulou says:

    It’s such a small bowl they pick royal names out of! Victoria is my bet.

  7. brin says:

    It says both names (Elizabeth and Diana) will be middle names…you know how the royals like four or five middle names to rattle off.

  8. maemay says:

    She looks pregnant, her face is fuller and she is glowing.

    I vote Frances Diane

  9. PrettyTarheel says:

    Her face seems just a tiny bit softer. Perhaps she had a bite of cake yesterday-you know how those carbs just bloat you right up.
    I love them together, both as a couple and as a never-ending source of gossip, and I hope they are pregnant.

  10. Bored suburbanhousewife says:

    Can’t imagine Elizabeth won’t be one of the names. Also can’t imagine “Carole”–it screams middle class (LAK, help me out here) Maybe an up market variation like Caroline. Can imagine a respected name without contemporary baggage (see Diana) like Victoria. And how about Georgina? George VI is well respected, was adored by his daughter the Queen, and besides has been portrayed by Colin Firth! Nice honorific.

    • LAK says:

      Carole would never do….LOL, but Caroline absolutely.

      Caroline of Brunswick was married briefly to George IV. Marriage was a disaster, but they had a daughter, Charlotte who was princess of wales until her untimely death, paving the way for Victoria.

      Georgina is a standard aristocratic name, so there wouldn’t be any objections, plus there was a famous Georgina in the Spencer family [ the film THE DUCHESS is about her], and if they called their child, they would be honouring a long list of Georges including CHarles who has said that when he becomes king he will also be known as a George.

  11. DanaG says:

    Victoria would be my bet whoever they have first will be the next king or queen of England so some names are out. Like James would never be used for a King some names are considered unlucky. It was said that Prince Charles had Victoria picked out for a girl and wouldn’t allow Sarah and Andrew to use it for their daughters. Victoria Elizabeth Diana Carole?? don’t think Carole will get a look in first time around. The second has to be normal as well in case something happens to the first but they could go mad with the third. I think she will be pregnant soon so that it will be announced in the Diamond Jubilee year if she was a few months along they could have worked it out to have it at the end of the year, that would have been great too.

  12. Jane says:

    It will depend on who is the new heir.
    Since before the Tudor Dynasty there has rarely been a break in using the same names. Only when the successor has come from a different path does the name alter.

    Names like Zara and Beatrice are accepted because they are far enough from immediate accession.

    Henry VII
    Henry VIII
    Edward VI
    Mary I
    Elizabeth I
    James I (VI in Scotland)
    Charles I
    Charles II
    James II
    Mary II & William III
    Anne I
    George I
    George II
    George III
    George IV
    William IV
    Victoria I
    Edward VII
    George V
    Edward VIII
    George VI
    Elizabeth II
    Charles III or William V

    (Yes I know it by heart)

    Victoria II would be nice but I love Elizabeth too and since last year they changed the rule of primogeniture (first male succession)this means if William and Catherine have a daughter first then shes first in line for the throne :)

    I think it is smart to put the royal baby off…

    Think of it this way:
    -Queen Elizabeth lives for 10 more years til she’s 96 (her mother lived til 101 so she has a shot).
    -Option 1: She gives Charles the crown and he lives another 20+ years.
    -Option 2: She by-passes Charles and William succeeds her.

    In option 1: William is 50+ when he becomes King.
    In option 2: 40+

    The longer he puts off children the younger his children will be when they succeed him. However we are living so much longer these days that even if he did succeed his Grandmother (not his father) his child might not become monarch till 60. It’s a messed up cycle now that lifespan has increased so.

    I think that Charles might need to skipped for the future of the monarchy. Sad though because he spent his life preparing for the moment but it’s just not coming.

    Perhaps he may rule as regent(fill in) if his mother (god forbid) becomes ill. She has said she will never abdicate but if her health declines Charles may get his chance.

    The monarchy loves consistancy. That’s why the Queen is quite popular, she is constant in the lives of many. I do not think they will diverge from the usual set of names.

    Omg look what I’ve written.
    So sorry for to unleashed my inner History nerd! I got on a path of contemplation and couldn’t stop :D

    Better add some bitchy…
    I hate Catherines Hat but at least she changed her shoes :O

    • cecilia says:

      You can’t really judge from the names of kings and queens, though, because often they would change their name on acceding to the throne. So, someone’s given name could be Arthur, but he’d be George on the throne.

    • mln76 says:

      Question since according to this list there really are only four choices (Mary, Anne,Elizabeth or Victoria) would it be conceivable for a female heir to be named after one of the consort Queens? Just curious.

      • LAK says:

        @Min76 – there are also the following

        Charlotte, Princess of Wales who was destined to become Queen in her own right, but she died in CHild birth making way for Victoria.

        Caroline of Brunswick who was Charlotte’s mother and Queen consort, though not crowned due to mutual dislike of her hisband and left the country.

        Alice [ditto, but also favours Prince Philip's side of the family]

        Alexandra [ditto]

        Margaret [Henry 8's sister and also current Queen's sister]

        Marina [favours prince philip's side of the family]

        Helena, Louise, Beatrice, [Queen Victoria's daughters]

        etc

        The list is very long but also whilst they can have any of these names, they will not necessarily choose to be called those names when they are Queen.

      • flan says:

        Philippa would work in some ways then. She was a medieval consort queen and very beloved amongst the people. Her nickname was Good Queen Philippa. She was much more popular than I think any queens consort since the Stuart times. It also has a nice connection with the ‘now’ by sounding like Elizabeth’s husband.

        Cons: perhaps it sounds too much like a made-up name. This Philippa was only Queen of England, not Scotland and she raised an army against them when she was regent.

      • bluhare says:

        Wouldn’t that mean that she’d be named after Kate’s sister? Phillipa is her name.

      • LAK says:

        @Bluhare – unfortunately, that is what people would remember.

    • duchessofhazard says:

      The only way the throne would jump from Prince Charles to Prince William would be by an act of Parliament; and only after it was put to a vote via the Commonwealth. In addition, with Charles being so thirsty for the Kingdom (and the changes he wishes to put afoot), William wouldn’t get it before his turn.

    • LAK says:

      @Jane – It’s not going to be CHarles III because of bad history of previous CHarles. He has already let it be known that he will be George VII.

      Beatrice is named after Queen Victoria’s youngest Daughter, so that option can be in the running for a future Queen if they stick to family names. Only Zara was truly unique and came from left field.

      The primogeniture thing is agreed in principal but is not law, yet.

      Prince William is the fortunate benefit of saint Diana glow which makes people think that the throne can skip, without a major act of parliament and commonwealth acceptance, to him.

      • Jane says:

        Oh! Will he be George VII? I just counted the Charles’ before him. I didn’t think Charles II had such a bad run but I see. That’s very interesting.

        I know it would be a big move to skip Charles but it’s not inconceivable. Many historians lately have come forward speaking the issue.

        and of course they may decide on another name but they do tend to stick to the same sets of names. Add in the consorts and children of the monarchs listed and you have a big bank of names. In the Daily Mail (usually rubbish) there was an article on the Queen’s godchildren …

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2153337/Nappy-glorious-As-Her-Majesty-celebrates-60-years-throne-present-gorgeous-gallery-relatives-godchildren-born-reign.html

        there is a huge amount of repetition. Usually used in monarchy previously.

        It’s a big step to even speak of the change to primogenture and it looks like it may go ahead.

        I do not believe Diana is a saint. But I do think that in commonwealth countries (such as mine NZ) that the monarchy is losing popularity and if William is a better bet to securing its retention then he might be a better opition than Charles.

      • LAK says:

        @JAne – Aristocratic class, most of whom are descended from kings and Queens maintain those names within their families which is why you find the same names over and over.

        The process of removing Charles would require more than discontent in the media. Assuming HM is still alive when such a move was made, she would need to issue letters patent which would have to be accepted by our parliament and the other 16 realms in the commonwealth.

        As unpopular as Charles is, William is an unknown quantity. I do not think the Realms would vote to skip Charles on the basis of his unpopularity.

        Also, if you study history, every incoming heir is greeted with disquiet and is usually less popular than the reigning monarch.

        I did not mean to infer that you were a Dianaist but only to point out that her popularity and her suggestion in that horrid panorama programme that Charles was unfit, is what has worked against him in the heir-to-the-throne stakes.

        Skipping the throne would also go against the law of inheritance which would affect everyone in the land. The days of a monarch naming any body they liked other than via their birth right are long gone.

      • BW says:

        If “Charles” had such a bad rep as a name, then why did Queen Elizabeth II name her first son Charles? Surely, she wouldn’t have named him Charles if she didn’t want him to be King Charles III some day.

      • LAK says:

        @BW – she also named him Philip Arthur George so he has choices.

        Charles as a private name isn’t tainted but as a monarch’s name it is considered unlucky given what happened to the other two Charles.

        Ditto Richard and John.

    • LAK says:

      @Jane – you missed out line before the Tudors.

      If we go back as 1066, we can add the following names to the pot.

      Mathilda, Eleanor, Isabella, Blanche, Philipa, Catherine.

      There is also Henrietta [Charles I's daughter who went on to marry Phillip Louis XIV's brother]

      this is fun.

      The only names that would not be on this list are Charles [after I&II disasters] and John [ditto]

      • Bored suburbanhousewife says:

        Henrietta–I’ve heard it called the number one favorite aristo name because they know the proles would never, ever adopt it!

      • LAK says:

        @Bored suburbanhousewife – that is too funny. LOL.

      • flan says:

        Blanche was the name of a few French Queens (one a very capable one at that), but the others are true. I like Matilda and Philippa the best out of your list, because they belonged to popular queens. There were also a Joan, a Berengaria, a Margaret and an Adeliza, but none of these were specifically great. Berengaria never even set foot in Britain.

        If we go back really far, before the conquest, we can also add Emma, Edith and Judith.

        And if we look at Scottish Queens Consort, we can also add Marie, Anne, Yolande and Gruoch.

        Who is Gruoch? Lady Macbeth, ladies and gentlemen ;)

      • LAK says:

        @Flan – Does Boudicca qualify? How awesome would that be?

        I always think Gruoch has been demonised, as have many of these queens.

        All rulers were as horrid as each other, but the Queens were especially demonised simply for being female

      • Jane says:

        You are quite right, I didn’t include them. I will be the first to admit I know little about the monarchy earlier than the Tudors (I am only 18 and we haven’t covered it yet).

        I know that they use the same names in the aristocratic class. I just wanted to show an example of the bank of names used recently to get a scope of what William and Catherine may choose from.

        You seem very knowledgable on the subject of Charles’ accession. It is deceiving for us here in NZ to be told he might be skipped. We already have a pro-republic left-wing candidate and polls in NZ and Australia show many beleive a good time to shift to a republic would be at the end of the Queen’s reign.

        I guess I just put hope into William’s accession as his popularity might boost support for the retention of the monarchy here but if we become a republic I suppose I move to Britain :D

        I still think Elizabeth is an appropriate choice obviously because of both the Queen and the Queen mother as well Elizabeth I. They all have/had a high popularity or at least an pleasant legacy.

        They will probably have more than one child of course so they will just have to pick their combination!

        :D

      • LAK says:

        @Jane – the subject of Charles’inheritance is also discussed here in Britain but only to emphasise that it is a closed book constitutionally and not a popularity contest.

        Diana started the whole he is unfit to rule train which has been taken up by republicans. When you examine what he has done as he waits to inherit, you see that apart from being a lousy husband, he has used his position in many charitable ways. In that regard, in his own buttoned up way, he is as hardworking as Diana was.

        regarding names, i am personally bored by Elizabeth, Mary and Victoria. Every other person i come across is one of these names. Kate’s Middle name is Elizabeth. urgh!!!

        I really hope that if they stay within the royal tradition, they pick an unusual name from early in British history or even European names seeing that they are all cousins anyway.

        EDIT: You didn’t include Jane in your list of Kings/Queens. She only ruled for 9 days between Edward IV and Mary I.

        as i said in another post….poor Jane. no one ever remembers her.

      • Bored suburbanhousewife says:

        @LAK : I agree with you it would be nice to see something acceptable but not totally predictable and boring like Elizabeth, etc. Given the deeply cautious & conservative nature of Kate, however, I don’t see it, especially with her background. It is very instructive that the shrewd & upwardly mobile Carole gave her daughters v.aristocratic names like Catherine Elizabeth & Philippa. No Jessica’s or Kaylies here! And if as is posited they campaigned to win the princess slot for Kate, well, I just see a super conservative name pick for first born coming.
        Very impressed by the extremely well informed historical discussions on a celeb website but then I guess that is why we are all reading it.

        Btw LAK I am starting to come round reluctantly on the nature of the Will Kate union. The main reason is that unlike the prenup period, where they at least looked like good companions who felt comfortable together, he now seems just completely bored and pissed off looking all the time.

        But I don’t have the time of day to address the sweet clueless ones who imagine that if Diana were alive her sage advice on matters of the heart would have influenced Will re Kate. She was an emotional and mental train wreck, sadly.

      • flan says:

        @Lak, Boudicca was a Queen consort, sort of (since they didn’t have the term yet) when her husband was still alive. After his death, she took over. Of course they only ruled over one tribe, but it would be beyond awesome if they gave her that name. All bow to Queen Boudicca, hehe.

        Yeah, many of these were demonised and only the last 10-20 years serious efforts are being made to go beyond the harpy queen image of some of them. Thoug I think it will be justifid if they don’t choose ‘Eleanor’.

        Eleanor of Aquitaine rebelled against her husband with her sons. Eleanor of Provence was hated by the English for her detrimetal influence (people threw dirt and turds at her once when she was on a boat on the Thames) and Eleanor of Castile was considered as way to strict with her tenants. Though her husband loved her (hence the Eleanor crosses). They did other things (both the first and last went on crusade), but the last two were famously unpopular in their times.

        @Jane. Please take a look at the medieval queens of England. Many of them were at least as interesting as the Tudors consort queens, and some wielded considerably more power.

      • LAK says:

        @Flan, @boredsuburbanhousewife, @JAne – we need a separate history thread. We are all History nerds here!! LOL.

        i love reading CB because you do get reasonable discussions and information on so many things even though we come on to celeb bitch!!. I learnt alot from that Autism thread afew days ago.

      • LAK says:

        @Flan – i rather like Eleanor of Aquitaine. Except for that little rebellion against her husband for which she was severly punished, she was fabulous. I especially like that she was able to chart the course of her life as independently as if she lived in current times. She had serious balls!!!

        It’s amazing that her life isn’t a hollywood film yet.

    • Lisa Turtle says:

      LAK – Comment of the Day! You have done your research! We have a royal baby name expert here!!!

      I completely agree with your assessment of the situation. At least for the first child – the Heir – the name will be as traditional as it can be. For a boy, I would look strictly at past kings. Henry, James, George, Arthur. For girls they will definitely be limited to Mary, Anne, Elizabeth, Victoria. Maybe Margaret, Alexandra, Alice, Caroline or Charlotte. The other names suggested like Marina or Helena are too unusual in the English tradition to be real choices. I think the name of the future king or queen is one of those touchy areas where the current Queen and “the Palace” will have a strong and powerful opinion.

      I would add that Jane may even be a possibility, even though the ill-fated Lady Jane Grey never did get to be Queen herself, the name is solidly English and has a strong tradition. Plus it is currently a rather unusual choice for a little girl and that may appeal to them. Two of Henry VIII’s six wives were Janes, and I believe that through Diana, William is descended from Jane Seymour.

      If I had to guess…
      Boy: Arthur Charles Philip …(and more middle names)
      Girl: Alice Elizabeth Diana …(and more middle names)

    • CC says:

      Charles won’t be skipped unless he loses his mental faculties. He may be unpopular but he will succeed Elizabeth.

      And to be honest….he’s no better or worse than a lot of previous monarchs, it’s just that everythnig they do is known by all, which wasn’t the case in the past, and as recent as 50 years ago.

      It’s the Hollywood thing, and how in the past the studios were able to keep certain info about their stars out of the press, and now….well…

      Oh and Diana is a horrible name IMO, I sincerely hope they don’t use it as anything other than an afterthought.

  13. Susan says:

    Re: Bey’s bump: I just meant that it’s more than necessary to accentuate her features. And mine (at the time). I eventually just went to the Lancôme counter and was shown how to do a subtle smoky eye that enhances my eye shape. The way I was doing it before, I just looked made up, not better.

  14. Anne says:

    I think “Elizabeth” is a given to be part of a girl’s name, I would be a little surprised if it wasn’t.

  15. Emma says:

    Princess Alexandra or Prince Alexander :)

  16. Kim1 says:

    How do they know they she can get pregnant? Is there a test they can do? Do they test his sperm count? I m asking because I know several young healthy couples who havent been able to get pregnant.Just asking

    • Susan says:

      Yup there are several pretty simple tests. For guys a semen analysis measures count/motility etc. They want to see 10 million +. Women can get a HSG which is a dye study where they put a solution in her Fallopian tubes to assure that no blockages/scarring exists and that her uterus is intact (no fibroids, polyps). Then a blood test on cycle day 3 to measure FSH which indicates the quantity/quality of her ovarian reserve. Most docs won’t even start all this until a couple under 30 has been trying for over a year. Over 30, after 6 months. And docs vary/ tests vary. This process is can change for each individual.

      • Justme says:

        Even with all the tests of course there is always the awful “unexplained infertility”. I don’t think they should wait too long – fertility does decline rapidly after 35, but it does decline in your early thirties too. If there is a problem, they need to know early. Here’s hoping all goes well for them!

        HSG — aaack – had one — very painful!

  17. Janet says:

    Diana Victoria. Got a nice ring to it.

  18. Murphy says:

    My $ is on Catherine. The Queen Mother did it!

  19. Snowangel says:

    Can’t see the name Elizabeth being used. Not after the hell she put Diana through in the last two years of her life. I think they will use a combination of one fresh name and some classics. No this is not Mohammed Fayed, but have you seen the film ‘Unllawful Killing’ where it is alleged the Queen ordered the killing of Diana? Very convincing, and not allowed to be shown in the U.K.

    • LAK says:

      Dear Mohamed Fayed,

      Our personal sercretary informs us that you produced this film.

      As you have dragged us through several court room dramas on the subject that have ruled in our favour, we now ask that you refrain from publicising this fantasy of yours especially during our Jubillee.

      And once again may we remind you that this is no way to get back into our books so we can issue you with our passport.

      EIIR

      cc. philip

  20. DemoCat827 says:

    Kate’s middle name is Elizabeth, too.

  21. Amy says:

    They don’t just use cookie cutter names in that family. Princess Eugenie, anyone? While I hate the name, you gotta admit it’s a bold name to give a royal!

    And it would be nice to see them give the kid a different first name–I don’t mind people honoring their family by giving them family names for middle names. But I think it’s nice to give an original first name. So he/she can carve out his own identity with it and not have to “live up to expectations” by whoever he/she was named after.

    Oh and Noah–my cousin had a baby yesterday and they named him Noah!

  22. Kellie says:

    Peeps, they are traveling in the fall, no way she’s pregnant.

  23. L says:

    The hat is recycled to from armed forces day last year.
    http://www.celebitchy.com/164951/kate_the_duchess_of_cambridge_wears_a_smart_navy_suit_lovely_or_meh/

    @amy-andrew and fergie were allowed to name their girl Eugenie because she is so far out of the line of succession. Otherwise that name would never have flown.

    • LAK says:

      Eugenie is named after Queen Victoria’s Granddaughter, Eugenie of Battenberg who went on to marry the King of Spain and is the current King’s grandmother.

      Beatrice is named after Queen Victoria’s youngest daughter who incidentally is also the mother of Eugenie of Battenberg.

      So those names can be used for a future Queen if they are sticking to tradition of family names.

  24. vava says:

    I doubt she’s pregnant, there was no evidence of that in the lace McQueen dress she wore to the church service the other day. Also, this hat she has on, she wore that last year with the navy blue military styled McQueen dress.

    I really hate the Missoni coat on her. It looks cheap and has no flattering cut for someone so stick thin. I won’t even go into those awful shoes……..

  25. LAK says:

    I hope they don’t give any daughters they have Diana’s name. The press will insist on calling her/them that even if it’s a middle name. And that poor baby girl[s] will suffer from Diana comparisons.

  26. Boo says:

    Aw, I wish they’d go with Mary Elizabeth Diana. Alexandra is fabulous, though perhaps too fab for an English queen?

    • Justme says:

      I like Mary Elizabeth Diana as well — they might even throw in another name as well — Caroline? Caroline is one of the female forms of Charles and also is sort of like the more downmarket Carole.

      Of course if you are going for Queen Consorts you could always use Edward III’s Queen – a very successful one since she “littered a high number of boys” (which helped lead to the War of the Roses but whatcha gonna do?) Her name was Philippa (yep that’s right Aunt Pippa’s name!)

      • LAK says:

        Edward III started the 100years war not the War of the Roses.

      • flan says:

        She said it ‘helped lead to’ the wars of the Roses. This is perfectly right, since all the mess started when a loot of the third son’s branch did away with king Richard II (the son of Edward’s first son). His grandson was later challenged by the Yorks who claimed descend in female line from the second son and in male line from the fourth.

        The Tudors also claimed descent from the third son, but this was contested since this was through the line of Catherine Swynford, his third wife and former mistress, whom son #3 only married after their children were born. Their lines were all barred from the succession then, even though these children were legitimized.

      • LAK says:

        @Flan – not that i approve of war, and of course 20/20 hindsight is a great thing, but that King needed to be challenged. He was weak, wishy washy, ruled by whoever was the favourite to the detriment of his own kingdom. And of course his Wife was a disaster too, short sighted and entitled to the nth degree, and very blinkered and obstinate in her views.

      • flan says:

        I think Justme’s point was that too many sons can be as dangerous as no sons for a royal line. At least in medieval times, whenever there were more than 2 sons in England, there was almost always trouble sooner or later (in a following generation).

        @ Lak, I guess you are talking about Henry VI? I agree that he was not much of a king and he would probably have been happier as a monk. Part of the problem was that he became king as a baby and therefore never got to grow up like princes did (a bit further from power still and with companions their own age). His mother also took off after she remarried against the council’s wishes, leaving him surrounded by older men. And then, after he had grown up, he got mad from time to time.

        However, weak kings (mad or youthful) have still ‘ruled’ relatively successfully in Europe whenever there was a capable and loyal regent. The problem was that his Lord Protector, Richard of York, also had a strong claim to the throne.

        Both he and Richard II would far less likely have been challenged if all those other strong-willed descendents of Edward III had not been lurking about.

        That said, the Yorkists put interesting new names into the royal line. One of their princesses was called Cecily and another Bridget. Elizabeth I was named after their sister, Elizabeth of York.

      • LAK says:

        @Flan – yes that is the king i am talking about.

        The problem wasn’t just limited to sons but any claimant to the throne. That’s why the first son law of inheritence works in recent centuries because pre-stuart age, anybody with the slightest claim to the throne and a capable army could usurp. That’s how the Tudors got in.

    • LAK says:

      @Boo – you are forgeting Queen Alexandra who was Edward VII’s wife.

      Charles has much to fear if this example is anything to go by because Edward VII was Prince of Wales for 60years and only ruled for 10yrs.

  27. Liz says:

    She’s probably NOT pregnant–people are just seeing what they want to see–but all this speculation about fuller cheeks and a fat ass are probably going to send her into full-on starvation mode. Watch for her to get even bonier.

  28. Kristen says:

    No way Kate’s pregnant. She’s still getting spray tans, by the looks of it.

  29. HME says:

    The hat is a repeat too, she wore it last year with a beautiful coat that had 3/4 length sleeves. LOVE the hat, so much better than that netting and butterfly thing she wore to the service of thanksgiving. The coat is meh and quite old looking. But THIS is how you do repeats!! Wear something we haven’t seen in a while, not something we saw 2 weeks ago. Yay for her hair being pulled back!!

    I do feel bad for her about all this bump speculation but it’s not like she didn’t know this is what she’d be in for. Hopefully she just ignores it all (doubtful). I don’t think she is pregnant though, they’ll wait until the olympics are over I think.

    I can’t believe people stil think the crown could just skip Charles and go straight to Will. *shakes head*. That’s not how it works people. The only way the crown would go straight to Wll after he Queen is if she outlives him. Seriously that is the ONLY way. Charles isn’t just going to step aside for William and William wouldn’t ask him to either (not to mention it would requir an act of parliament etc, etc ). Will is fighting tooth and nail against becoming a full time Royal, he doesn’t want to be King any earlier than he has to.

    • JulieM says:

      Yes. Pretty unbelievable to even consider Charles being skipped over. Never. Happen. Not. Done. Only if his mother survives him. Also- He’s waited far too long for it. Even though he treated Diana horribly, he’s earned “The Chair”.

  30. JessL says:

    Queen is probably shaking in her Depends!!! Kate’s eggs are aging by the day… Oh no she’s 30! Put that uterus to work!! Don’t the tabs (UK ones at least) speculate she is preggo every week?

  31. aims says:

    I don’t see them getting pregnant anytime soon. I do think they very much want children, I think they’re just living their lives, and what ever happens happens.

  32. Amy says:

    I have sort of a stupid question and I could probably google it, but I’m feeling a bit lazy. Why do royals change their names? Why wouldn’t Charles just be King Charles, even if previous Charles’ had bad times before him?

    I realize this sounds sort of ignorant. Sorry…I’m just genuinely curious!

    • jenna says:

      I think there are a variety of “reasons”. Historically, one issue is that the first name is either too long/complex or too “foreign” (an issue when the Royal family are basically a bunch of Germans!). A British monarch needs to have a nice British name, you know?

      Then also I think there may be efforts to either distance from a bad association OR to get closer to a good association. In the case of Charles, the previous King George has lots of positive associations (guiding the country through a war, etc.) so it may not be so much that Charles is “bad” as that George is seen as better. I’m sure Charles would not mind if some of his grandfather’s glow rubbed off on him.

      I would not be surprised if they throw Catherine into the mix as a name, it’s not just the Queen Mum who did it (naming your kid after yourself). Elizabeth of York (grandmother of Elizabeth I) was the daughter of an Elizabeth.

      Personally I hope they go for something super old school like Eleanor or Maud…it still references previous royals, but from so long ago that it seems new.

    • LAK says:

      @Amy – may i just add to what @Jenna said.

      Officially the Royal family do not have a surname. What they have and is regarded as a surname is actually the name of the ruling dynasty ie Windsor. Their surname may or may not be the same as the name of the ruling dynasty in this case it is Mountbatten-Windsor.

      As each king is known only by their first names, then it is often a good pr move to use a name that is held in high regard usually based upon the previous namesake’s record. It is not a necessity for them to change it. In that spirit, you will not see Kings Charles, Richard or John any time soon because the namesakes were really unlucky/unfortunate.

      Every child born into the family is given several first names from previous royal family members that they can choose from when they become Monarch if they decide to change their name.

  33. Alex'sMommy says:

    Having an Alexandria myself I would love to see princess Alexandria!

  34. Minxx says:

    Mary Elizabeth Diana Alexandra for a girl
    and for a son I’d let them borrow my own son’s names: Julian Alexander (add Phillip or Charles:)

  35. bettyrose says:

    I vote for Suri Apple Scout.

  36. MollyB says:

    Sorry if someone already mentioned this but didn’t Will’s cousin already use the middle name Elizabeth for his daughter (the Queen’s first great-grandchild)? I seem to remember that but am too lazy to look it up.

  37. jack says:

    There’s something about this girl I just can’t take too. Maybe it’s that she was his own private stalker until they dated. Seriously, look into it. It’s creepy. Switching universities, switching courses, taking a year out to go to the same place abroad..it goes on and on. She & her mother were transparent. I also do not believe Kate mother made millions of pounds selling a few party bag pieces. It’s rediculous. I wish Diana had been around to advise William more. It’s tragic.

  38. shales says:

    There is absolutely no chance that they will try to conceive until after the Olympics. Expect a baby announcement around Christmas.

  39. SamiHami says:

    I seem to recall an old SNL skit in which the very young, single Prince Charles visits America and impregnates a young girl who happens to reside in a trailer park (Laraine Newman, I think). She is on her phone talking to a friend about going to England to marry Charles and how they were going to name their baby Prince Darryl. This thread is sooo reminding me of that…

    Prince Darryl?
    Princess Darlene?

    Hmmm…

  40. Reece says:

    Everybody is set on them having a girl…what if it’s a boy?

  41. Zvonk says:

    I think having the name Diana would be less baggage than being born to be Queen.

  42. Megan says:

    Wills and Kate look rather tense.

  43. Sachi says:

    Names like “Mary Elizabeth” are already way too common as a combination.

    Denmark’s future Queen is also named Mary Elizabeth.

    I know about 3 people who have both those names, too.

    I don’t really like the name Diana for a royal, and I wouldn’t like Diana’s granddaughter, if she is named after Diana Spencer, to be “burdened” from such a young age if the media would mention whom she was named after every time they talk about her. It’s not fair for a child to have that hanging over their head for the rest of their lives.

    The name Alexandra sounds regal, though. Victoria is a pretty good name.

    I’ve always liked the name Louise/Luisa/Louisa/Lovisa and many princesses and Queen Consorts (not just in England) were named as such.

    Eleanor/Leonor and its variants also sound majestic and the name has a great origin/meaning. The 6-year old daughter of Spain’s future King (thus a future Queen herself) is named Leonor, and there are many Eleanors in England’s royal history. I think it’s a lovely name.

    The Windsors are quite limited as to their royal women’s names, though, since so many of them were Mary, Catherine, Anne, Elizabeth, that any other name may be seen as unusual.

    Adelaide, Charlotte, Caroline, Sophia, Matilda, Margaret, etc. were names of England’s Queen consorts, too, and sound regal enough for a royal child.

    “Victoria Alexandra Elizabeth Louise” go well together and IMO has a nice ring to it.

    Oh heck, I’ll save that name for MY daughter. :D

    Maybe the child will be named “Carole Diana Philippa Elizabeth”. :D After all, Kate’s closest friends and confidants are supposedly her mother and sister, so there you go.

  44. flower says:

    One thing they won’t name her is Victoria, an old prophesy from the 1700′s states that under Elizabeth I and II Britain would thrive and be strong, under Victoria I Britain would be supreme but under Victoria II there would be nothing but disasters and ruin….. a prophesy made long before Queen Victoria was born.

  45. psu says:

    youtube.com/watch?v=g89ZajyN9AQ
    photos don’t do real justice how situation truly is