|
Post by paulchen on Feb 14, 2008 9:12:51 GMT
That looks like a start, Cinderella... With an XL-spreadsheet it was quite easy to do, even with all names, not just first names. I only looked at the living descendents of HM King George V and no spouses. This brought up "dynastic" favourites, such as Elizabeth, Alexandra, Mary, George, Philip and Charles. If I had looked any further back, I am sure I would have just come up with Victoria and Albert all the time!
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Feb 13, 2008 10:09:26 GMT
Triggered off really by the arrival of James, Viscount Severn just before Christmas, I have done a survey [not too serious] of the first names of current members of the British Royal Family [descendents of HM King George V].
If we take the decision that most members of the British Royal Family have four first names I have come up with the "average" names of both male and female members based on two criteria. Either the popularity of the name overall or the popularity of the name in its position - first name, second name, etc.
Men's names seem very traditional. There are three Edwards to start with [HRH the Earl of Wessex, HRH the Duke of Kent and his grandson Baron Downpatrick].
According to overall popularity, the average name for a male member of the British Royal Family would be:
George Edward Charles Philip
According to the popularity of each name in its position it would be slightly different:
Edward Charles Philip George
For the female members it is slightly different as there is a bigger diversity of names. Only one first name is shared, namely Marina [Marina Ogilvy and Marina-Charlotte, daughter of the Earl of St. Andrews].
For overall popularity it would be:
Elizabeth Alexandra Marina Mary
And for popularity according to each position of the name it would be either:
Marina Elizabeth Alexandra Louise or Marina Victoria Elizabeth Louise
The reason for the two possibilties there is that whilst Elizabeth is the top choice for second name [with four examples] it has five examples as third name.
Some patterns emerge that are also interesting to look at. For instance, the popularity of the name Louis [and also Louise] stemming from Lord Mountbatten and the popularity of Marina and Alexandra within the Kent family.
Has anyone done anything similar with other Royal Families?
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Jan 25, 2008 9:01:39 GMT
There are reports this morning that the new-born son of TRH The Earl and Countess of Wessex, Viscount Severn, is in hospital undergoing tests.
The Wessexes have had such trouble with raising a family, I really hope everything is OK with young James.
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Feb 16, 2008 12:49:11 GMT
1952 King George VI is buried at St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. Then it was also the anniversary of the Funeral of his younger daughter HRH The late Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon.
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Jan 27, 2008 15:29:09 GMT
1947 Prince Gustav Adolf of Sweden was killed in an air crash near Copenhagen. The singer Grace Moore was on the same flight.
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Jan 21, 2008 18:31:19 GMT
Great to have this feature back. Not too great for poor old Louis, though...
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Mar 11, 2008 17:39:04 GMT
Should the Diana Inquest come to an end? Yes! Please!
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Feb 23, 2008 13:31:25 GMT
Should she propose? Or should she wait for William to pop the question? Why not? One thing, I think William would be a fool to let Kate go again.
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Feb 17, 2008 10:42:59 GMT
The Diana Inquest - Will someone ever take responsibility? Well, Mohammed Al Fayed certainly won't recognise his part in it. He has managed to obfuscate enough to delay the Inquiry for 10 years, which means the limit for his responsibility has been reached and no one can make a claim against him.
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Feb 17, 2008 10:38:10 GMT
Is the Queen too old to reign? If not, how old is too old? At present, The Queen is more than capable to reign. In the future, if she's anything like her mother, she'll be fine. Don't forget, The Queen considers it a job for life. However, the Family [or "The Form"] share things out and if it gets too much she will appoint HRH The Prince of Wales regent. That's how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Feb 17, 2008 10:34:04 GMT
After his appearance at the Diana Inquest, has Paul Burrell finally cooked his own goose? Yes. He's cashed in a little too much on his connection with Diana, only to be bailed out at the trial earlier by none other than The Queen! Can anyone trust a word he says now?
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Jan 21, 2008 8:37:54 GMT
It came out only last week in the Inquiry into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales from the Head of the Metropolitan Police at the time that, had Diana not refused police protection, she might still be alive today...
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Jan 20, 2008 13:03:57 GMT
Oh dear, Robert Brown's claim to be the son of HRH The late Princess Margaret's son is hitting the headlines and coming to court again.
He wants Princess Margaret's will and that of her mother HM The late Queen Mother to be published to prove his case. Does he believe they were made private specifically to cover up what he claims? Apparently, it began in 1910 when HM Queen Mary's wayward brother Prince Francis of Teck died, leaving jewelery [including the Cambridge Emeralds] to his mistress. Fearing a scandal so close to the Coronation, Queen Mary leaned on a judge to keep the will sealed. Queen Mary bought the Emeralds back off the mistress and allegedly wore them at the Coronation in 1911.
Do we really want Royal Wills to be published, just because of this one man's claim?
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Jan 24, 2008 15:58:36 GMT
I have done a little research on the labels assigned to the descendants of British monarchs.
Three of HM Queen Victoria's daughters received a 3-pointed label each with a red rose in the middle, flanked by other objects - Victoria, St George's Cross; Alice, ermine spot; Louise, red canton. The other two - Helena and Beatrice - received red roses as the outer symbols, flanking a St George's cross and a red heart, respectively.
Queen Victoria's three younger sons [Her eldest, Albert Edward, Prince of Wales was assigned a plain white label, of course] were assigned 3-pointed labels with a St George's cross in the middle, flanked by blue anchors [Alfred], blue fleurs-de-lys [Arthur] and red hearts [Leopold].
The future Edward VII's three daughters were assigned 5-pointed labels in their Grandmother Queen Victoria's lifetime. However, when she eventually passed away, their father didn't have the labels updated to 3 points as would have been expected. Maybe, as pointed out on the previous site, this wasn't felt necessary as two of the sisters were already married. And also, with all the descendants of Queen Victoria already, the available combinations for 3-pointed labels may have been a bit restricted. Although, it is rather unusual as HM King Edward VII was well-known as a stickler for getting this kind of thing and orders and medals right. He even created his two granddaughters by his eldest daughter, Louise, the Princess Royal, princesses.
Labels seem to become a little haphazard and don't follow any set pattern until we come to the grandchildren of HM King George V where they take on the symbols of their respective father, adding St George's crosses [and, in the case of HRH Princess Alexandra, red hearts as well].
Then we have our present Queen's grandchildren. The pattern [apart from Prince William's label which is traditionally 3-pointed as the eldest son of the Prince of Wales] seems to be to have some allusion to the mother [red escallops [shells] for Prince Harry and bees for Princess Beatrice - also a pun on her name] with the two inner points blank. In the case of Prince Harry, I think this is rather confusing, as his label looks very much like his brother's at a quick glance. I wonder what Princess Eugenie's label will be when she is assigned arms later this year for her 18th Birthday.
|
|
|
Post by paulchen on Jan 19, 2008 14:52:23 GMT
I thought I would start a thread and carry on a subject I was in the middle of on the old site. Namely, Royal Heraldry.
I have had a search through my reference books and, so far, I can't find where HM King George V, as prince, got assigned a five-point label with a blue anchor. I would imagine it would be when his elder brother, Prince Albert Victor, was created Duke of Clarence and Avondale and was assigned a three-point label with a [red] St. George's cross as eldest son of the Prince of Wales. The Princes did things together and served in the Navy together. But it wasn't until after Albert Victor had died and George was created Duke of York that he was assigned the three-point label and [presumably] retained the blue anchor as the eldest-surviving son of the Prince of Wales.
I will keep on looking and raise a few other points about an interesting time in British Royal Heraldry.
|
|