There may be upset tummies today here at Bapton.
What with champers for the new princess; juleps for the Kentucky Derby; and a glass or two of the creature raised to mark and mourn the death of the great Ruth Rendell.
(HMQ must be rather torn, now I think of it, between the excitements of the new great-grandroyal, and the races.)
Of course, there’s the question of the new princess’ name. I imagine there are courtiers and civil servants and not a few politicians hoping that nothing is decided and revealed until after the General Election. (And in that sense, it’s as well it wasn’t a prince. Thanks to HM uncle the abdicator, there’ll likely never be another David; whereas there commonly is an Edward. Mind, neither Nicks nor Nigels have ever made the running in Royal names.) Naturally, it’s unlikely that child will have ‘Ruth’ as one of her names, despite everything.
Whatever happens, there is likely to be some subtle nod in the naming to the Home Nations, and Scotland not least. Wales might hope for the inclusion of ‘Angharad’ or ‘Elen’ or ‘Gwenllian’, but....
A quick look at all four Home Nations suggests that the following are suitable names which have appeared regularly as the names of princesses and of consorts in all four, or have a certain suitability for historic reasons. K/Catherine is one; Margaret is very much one (Owain Glyndŵr’s consort was a Margaret); Mary of course is consistently used; Marjorie ought by rights to please the Scots; and there have been Joans in Scotland, Ulster, Wales, and England as consorts and princesses born, in plenty. Anne is also a sound choice.
But whatever may be chosen at the christening, Welcome, Your Royal Highness, and may you live long and happily in a United Kingdom.