"They've done just fine without her and most Brits like their monarchy just as it is."

I think we've had this conversation before and have different experiences and perspectives. Nearly 20% of the country (Scots, Welch, non-unionist Northern Irish) dislike the monarchy because they see the royal family as "English", not British. They're a symbol of their subjugation by the English, the source of the diminishment of their identities and sovereignty. Yes, that's still a sore subject for many after all these years.

Of my dozens of visits to the UK over many decades and the many English people I still know and others I've met, more than not seem to have respect for the institution of the monarchy while having little respect for the current members of the royal family. A broadly held opinion is that the queen has long been aware of how disliked Prince Charles is by the general public and that's why she hasn't abdicated to make him King.

At the same time, the popularity of Diana and the appeal of her two sons have been a breath of fresh air. I think in the coming years the brothers will restore greater public regard for the royal family.

Every time anyone uses the term "breath of fresh air" when describing a new member of the royal family, it has not ended well. Diana was described that way and we know how that ended.

As for their popularity or lack thereof, well, the polls show that they are liked by 70+% of the public. Most US Presidents would swoon over such figures.

And it has nothing whatsoever to do with any of us living across the pond anyway!! Who cares what they name their child or how that name(s) relates to anything past or present? If they are happy with it (and you have know that Great Grandma gave her approval) then it is none of our business....any more than what your neighbors down the street decide to name their newborn.

I honestly have to wonder why anyone spends more than a second fussing over this stuff.

I don't think the Queen would care much since this child is so very far down the royal pecking order. She would only have objected if it was some ridiculous made-up name. She's really not an "Off with their heads" kind of Queen.

ARCHIE! Comic Book Archie! Red-headed Archie with his pals Reginald, Betty, and Veronica.

Elmer, yes that was a typo and no I am not changing it.

"She's really not an "Off with their heads" kind of Queen."

No one implied that she was. But her grandsons are very close to her and there is no doubt in my mind that she has been consulted extensively on every facet of the pregnancies and births and her approval sought with any decisions. It is just something that both boys (and by assumption, their spouses) would do.

"We tend to use the mother's or grandmother's maiden name as a middle name"

I've never met a single person whose middle name is their mother or grandmother's maiden name.

That would be rather odd to me.

"Some people need to get a life if they worry about such things"

"I honestly have to wonder why anyone spends more than a second fussing over this stuff"

Gardengal, perhaps you should get a life and quit spending all your precious seconds worrying about such things. You seem pretty invested, lol. And I'm the crazy one?

Texas_Gem, I use my mother's maiden name as my middle name, so now you know one person. :-)

Texas, I know a few people who have given their child a maiden name as a middle name. One could be a first name, but the other is very much a last name. This one was also passed on to the granddaughter. The daughter it so much she wanted her own daughter to have it too.

Not invested at all. And I am British by birth. Merely an observation. I just fail to see any logic or reason behind the need to go into all the unnecessary detail and discussion - 65 comments worth - for what was essentially just a simple birth announcement.

Not odd here. My daughter has her great grandmother's maiden name as her middle. My granddaughter has my mother's maiden name as her middle. My niece has her mother's maiden name as her middle. I could name a few more, but won't.

"Archie" is different these day, but I kinda like it. :)

Gardengal, then just a question. If this topic doesn't interest you, why comment at all? It serves no purpose other than "looking down" on the rest of us for having fun with this topic. As we say in my family, "What good could come out of it?"

I believe Cary Grant’s real name was Archie Leach - so not that new and I believe Harrison is an American name so a nod to both parents’ heritage.

Here's a list of at least quasi-famous Archies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie

My grandfather's middle name was his mother's maiden name, Harris, and his first name was George. When my mother died, my sister told the press that our grandfather's name was "George Harrison..." instead of "George Harris..." but she never corrected it (despite my bringing it to her attention), and I am still not happy about that. Even at the funeral, the wrong name was given. We are not directly related to any of the Beatles, although we are more English than I thought at first, after receiving results from 23&me. However, I do not identify as British at all, having been told all my life that we were mostly German and French.

Harris can also mean son of Harry, but it is still a different name.

Archie, you have to imagine a captain of industry or Nobel Laurette Archie.

When children were landed with maiden names as middle names it usually meant that the mothers family had pretentions of grandeur that the family wanted to celebrate. Pretentions is not pejorative in this sense.

So is this kid not going to use Lord Dumbarton? He would have the right as the son of a Duke to the courtesy title of Lord regardless. I have heard that many people with titles don't use them these days. Whats in a name so to speak.

Looks like a perfectly respectable representative of babydom. They all seem pleased which is the main thing.

Anglophila, you didn't like Henry marrying an American did you?

Both of my sons have family names fortheir middle name. My oldest son‘smiddle name in my maiden name. It’s a fairly common practice to use family names.

For or some reason when I heard Archie, my first thought was that he was going to be quite the rascal. I can’t imagine someone somber being named Archie. It’s a cute name but not very royal sounding, but as someone said above, he is pretty far down the pecking order. Who can name Charles’ siblings children? I can’t.

"Archie" sounds like he should have red hair, like Harry. It's kind of a Scots name, to me. and Harry is really Henry, just always goes by his nickname.

Charles' sister Anne has Zara and Peter, neither are very royal names, except for Czar Peter of course. Andrew has Beatriz and Eugenie, and Edward has Louise and James. James was the only one in line of succession.

Archie...Bunker comes to mind. Oh my!

My cousin has our mothers' maiden name as his middle name. Our grandparents had only daughters, so that was one way of carrying that name forward. I also understand that it is a common practice in the Philippines.

I too had the immediate thought that Archie sounds like a rascal, a charmer, lady’s man, wealthy playboy, etc. etc.

Texas_Gem, now you know a whole bunch of people with their mother's/grandmother's maiden name as their middle name! I personally know dozens of such people - probably more.

Patriciae, I had no problem with Harry marrying an American, just the American he chose! I don't think it's very easy becoming a member of the Royal Family and when the person's background is so difficult, it becomes more so. I think this has been proven with Meghan - just look at all the problems with her father and step-siblings. But it was not my choice - I got to chose my two husbands; Harry got to choose his wife. I wish them well, especially now that there is a child.

Archie . . . remember John Cleese's barrister character in A Fish Called Wanda? Funny movie!

Archie Leach, in fact: Cleese's homage to Cary Grant. One of the great comedies.

You don't get to choose your relatives.

I am thinking the new law of succession is going to include all those girls since girls now inherit in order. I wonder if it is retroactive?

Interesting how many are aware of this practice of using a mother/grandmother's maiden name as a middle name for a child.

I suspect it might be a regional thing.

I will freely admit that my family, going back to the 1700s, has never ventured much farther than our general area. The Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, New Mexico, Colorado region of the country.

Most of the people I know are also from this area of the country and, as I said, none that I know of have ever done this practice.

Upon hearing this, I did some research and discovered that this practice was the reason so many presidents had, what I had always considered, "weird" middle names.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Lyndon Baines Johnson

In my circle, a middle name is basically a "second choice" to a first name. I know many people who go by their middle names. Some have been called by their middle name since birth, like my father, brother and nephew who all have the same first name, Michael, and they all have always been called by their middle name.

Others chose at some point in their life to go by their middle name.

Now I will ALSO say that, in this area, it is not at all uncommon for a woman, when she gets married, to drop her middle name and replace it with her maiden name.

That is what I did and what my mother did.

I suspect that this would be considered odd in other parts of the country, but again, a regional thing.

Giving a kid a last name for a middle name is an affectation to my ear, whether a family name or not. Yeah, right, you're continuing a dynasty, like the Mountbatten-Windsors? Two first names is a more common practice among people I know.

TG said "I suspect it might be a regional thing." and that made me smile. I once suggested that to her about something she had said or observed and she jumped all over me for saying that, thinking that my doing so was a way of being critical. It wasn't and her using the phrase isn't either.

The first thing to be noted is that, although “Archie” may strike an odd and unprecedented note in regal nomenclature, Archies are no big deal in British middle-class families. Archies are all over the place. There are playgroups awash with Archies. In some areas of London, if you stand up at a children’s party and call out “Archie!,” nine little boys will come running, smeared in cake.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-introduce-their-son-a-royal-named-archie

I cannot imagine how anyone can consider using a family surname as a middle name to be pretentious or an affectation. It's simply honoring a family member or carrying on a name that might be lost. My mother was one of 6 children. Only one brother ever had children and he did have two sons. Neither son ever had children. Thus my mother's family name would have died out/been gone. It's a pretty name and she included it as one of my TWO middle names (the other being a family name on my father's side). My daughter chose that name as her 2nd son's middle name to honor her beloved grandmother. No dynasties, no powerful, prestigious families - just a family name.

Interestingly, I find that children quite like having family names. When we were driving to AR to visit the Crystal Bridges Museum, I asked my SIL if we could go about a hour out of our way to visit my parent's graves. They are about an 8-10 hr drive from me and I had not been there since my other died in 1993. I felt badly about this as in my family, one visits the graves each Memorial Day and "decorates" the graves with flowers from ones own garden.

We got to this VERY small town cemetery and I realized that I had no idea where my parent's graves even were! No office - we're talking a very small rural town. I did, however, remember that a very distant cousin of my father's had come to his graveside funeral and had stayed in the car, parked under a tree - I think she was 98 at the time and it was hot. Fortunately, there was exactly ONE tree in the entire cemetery, so I sent my grandsons ahead to look for graves with certain names on them. One of my father's brother's name was the first name of each of my two grandsons. They were not specifically named for him - both names appeared multiple times in both DD and her husband's families. Grandson #2 found the grave and let out a whoop! He called to his brother to come see - there was a grave with BOTH their first names on it. Yep, we had the right family plot. The boys loved seeing that and then finding DGS2's middle name on my mother's headstone - her maiden name.

Names connect us to our past. They are part of who we are. They identify us much the way a kennel name identifies a dog. In the past, in England, they also identified ones trade - Miller, Smith, Brewer, Chandler. I see nothing wrong with this and many advantages. Clearly, we all want to feel connected more these days. Otherwise Ancestry and 23&Me would not be in business.

In our case, not a dynasty, LOL! Maybe to honor a Father who had died, now that I give it more thought.

"I cannot imagine how anyone can consider using a family surname as a middle name to be pretentious or an affectation. "

You're free to see it however you want to and I am too. I think we live in different cultural circumstances and even if not, there's room for all opinions. It may differ by region, by socio-economic circumstances, by ethinic background, or whatever. Among my family, people I know and have met in this area, it's not common.

"They identify us much the way a kennel name identifies a dog."

I think this says it all, it's a good example of where the practice more appropriately belongs. But this is another affectation that most people have no interest in or time for.

To be clear about my own view, I think using an ancestor's first or middle names, or the initial of same, is touching and fine. It's family names as middle names that I find to be an archaic and perhaps best described as a pretentious practice. And maybe even a bit tacky.

Texas_Gem -- Thanks for that tidbit about the re-naming custom in your circle. If you were introduced to me as GivenName MaidenSurname MarriedSurname, I would assume that you were divorced. Such was my late mother's legal name from the time of her 1940's divorce until her death. (Maybe it's no longer "Emily Post" correct?)

Scots have a rigid naming pattern. A firstborn son's own firstborn son is named for his father's father.

Names are important. (If you don't think so, try calling a young child by another name!.) "Claiming" is important, and names are one way to establish (or deny) a tie.

My father's family carried on an old tradition, whereby a child was only "Baby" until about age two -- or until another child was born. Until recent generations, many children didn't survive childhood diseases once their inherited immunities were depleted.

Chisue- I would never be introduced that way though. My maiden name is my legal middle name, but it is only used on official documents, drivers license, bank accounts, etc.

I've always been introduced/called by my first name, last name.

Is it standard practice to use someone's full legal name upon introduction?

If it is normal to use someone's full name, how can you tell if a woman is divorced or if she was given her mother/grandmothers maiden name as a middle name?

"Is it standard practice to use someone's full legal name upon introduction?"

I'd think only if that's how they refer to themselves. To me, doing so is archaic and in the modern day, a stuffy affectation.

There are many in history, in the bygone days: John Paul Jones, John Wilkes Booth, John Kenneth Galbraith, Hans Christian Anderson, Lee Harvey Oswald, etc..

A couple we know have a son who was motivated to become very successful and well known in an academic humanities field. We're talking about an ambition with an impressive PhD to be a professor at a well known college, not an instructor at a community college, and to have national notoriety. So, as part of developing his academic "brand", he legally changed his name to a three name name, and always uses all three. Think of something like Charles Nelson Reilly or Henry Louis Gates, Jr.. It's long and distinguished sounding, as if landed gentry. It's completely made up, family name and all. He jokes about it himself and believes having a distinguished sounding name has made him more remembered in his field and with his work has contributed to his prominence. But he also thinks he was a bit of a twit to do so.

But you know, maybe this is regional?

I always thought that a full name=big trouble.

I am of Russian heritage. We do not have middle names per se but use our father’s name - patronymic - as our middle name. My father’s name was Vladimir so my patronymic or middle name was Vladimirovna which translates as daughter of Vladimir.

Also, formally, when being addressed or introduced, typically one would use both i.e. I would be addressed/introduced as Natalya Vladimirovna.

Elmer, it's an "affectation" for one to have a dog with a registered name? I have no problem with people preferring to get their dogs at the local shelter or through a rescue organization. But for many, a purebred dog may be the best way to go. One knows the size, and the general over-all personality of such a dog.

When a purebred dog is registered (usually with the AKC, or with my breed it will often also e registered with the original registry - CKCSC, USA), the breeder gives it a name. The old slips with no registered name used by the AKC, are long gone - now all puppies are registered individually. The name will start with the kennel name, and then a given name. Most registries limit the number of letters in a registered name, so breeders typically chose a short kennel name in order to give them more "letters" for the name. So Kilspindie Oh Be Joyful would tell me that his breeder was Elizabeth Spalding in ME (now deceased for many years). She loved that name as in ME, if describing someone who had had a bit too much to drink, one would say he'd been into the "oh be joyful'! She waited years to use that name as she wanted to use it with a Christmas litter.

If the ownership of the dog is transferred to someone who also has a kennel name, it will be added at the end. So the above dog, if purchased by me, would become "Kilspindie Oh Be Joyful at Thatchcote". Thatchcote is my registered kennel name - I bred two litters many years ago - not for me, thank you! I chose that name as it was the name of a house on the Hudson River where my now late MIL grew up - her father had built the house. It had a nice "english" sound for a breed that originated in England.

Names are identifiers. With dogs, it's very nice to look at the name and immediately know who bred the dog - sometimes that is important information to have.

In the US, most of use have a given name (previously called a "Christian" name as it was the name give at our baptism/christening), and a surname. The surname identifies the family with which one is identified. Obviously, with many very common names, it's far from exact! Lots and lots of Smiths, Jones and Browns out there. But it's a start.

Families have different traditions about naming. Many like to carry on a name for generations: some families have a IV or even a V in them. In my late husband's family, they did not like "juniors" but used the same middle name for multiple generations. The same is true in DSIL's family and they continued that with DGS1. My son, a "junior" opted for a "3rd" and the boy is called "Trip". There is nothing affected or pretentious about this except in your own mind and prejudices, Elmer! This grandchild was adopted, and it was very important to my son to give him his own name as a show of his love and total acceptance of this child as his own. And he is...

People name their children many things for many reasons. Sometimes, it's to honor those from the past; sometimes it's honoring the present, sometimes they just like the name, or other times, they want "something" different. When a close friend was told her new granddaughter's name, a rather unusual one that did not go well with her surname, she asked the parents how they had chosen that name. They said they wanted a name that was "different". My friend has a quick wit and replied, "Then you should have named her Mary - no one uses that name much anymore!"

Over the years, many people used famous people's names in their child's name - George Washington Carver is an example. During the 3 FDR era, there were a lot of little boys named Franklin Roosevelt Jones/Smith/Brown etc.

I see a pulmonologist who is from Puerto Rico. His name is Dr Rivas Perez. But using the Spanish naming custom, he calls himself Dr Rivas. It's a bit confusing in his practice as there is also a Dr Perez!

provogal, thank you for that information. We were watching The Americans and were interested to hear that usage.

I can only imagine using some of our Polish last names as middle names. And mine isn't even particularly long.

"it's an "affectation" for one to have a dog with a registered name?"

A better answer might require a bit more time to think but I would say if you have one and tell other people that you have one, it's an affectation. Also same answer if you have one to associate with others who do. If you have one and keep that information to yourself, it's less likely so.

Many AKC breeders are responsible for serious damage to many breeds in the US. It's why, for example with German Shepherd dogs, having European parentage is prized. This is because over recent decades, lack of or inadequate genetic screening has produce hip dysplasia as a far too common and broad based disability in the American stock.

I prefer purebred dogs and have avoided breeders with associations with the world of show dogs or the AKC world in general. How to find good ones? Through vets and word of mouth. As you hinted, many crossbreed dogs can be healthier and have longer lives. My preference for purebred dogs is because of an affinity for certain breed behavioral characteristics. If I ever wound up with a dog with a five part pretentious name, I'd probably call him/her Spot and keep the background a secret.

Two TV shows from 50+ years ago had "rich" secondary characters given pretentious names and personal speech and conduct affectations that were intended to be irreverent and critical (though comedic) portrayals of that segment of society. Thurston Howell III was Jim Backus' character on Gilligan's Island and Chatsworth Osborne Jr. on Dobie Gillis. I guess you missed the significance of their names and their conduct?

Everyone has ancestors, those who lived 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, or wherever. To attach (and talk about) any significance or importance of them to someone living today or to "pass along the name" is, to me, quite pompous. You feel differently, that's fine.

Charles Emerson Winchester III was once called "Mr. Third" on M*A*S*H. Always makes me chuckle. (Get it? Chuckle?)

Another good example of a character with a pseudo-high society persona to mock those types. Played with the addition of the northeastern accent of the gentry. And, ironically, the character was played by an actor named David Ogden Stiers.

On the other hand, Hawkeye was otherwise called Benjamin Franklin Pierce. He never was just "Ben Pierce", and he had a pretty famous first-middle name. He introduced himself that way. And wasn't pseudo-high society.

True! But while the Hawkeye character was in the movie and the book on which it was based, the CE Wincester III character was a new character for the TV production. According to the Wikipedia article, the book was quasi-autobiographical, written by an irreverent surgeon about his Army experiences during the Korean War, and Hawkeye was the character based on himself. Unlikely to be mocking or sarcastic.

Honestly Elmer, do you think people truly go around saying that their dog's name is Kilspindie Kingfisher at Thatchocte? NO! His call name was Alfred or Freddy! If a dog club person asked who he was, they mean his registered name as they would be curious about who the breeder was, especially if they liked him. But if asked by someone who admires my dog while we're walking, I'll say "Her name is Shimmer".

And is it truly pretentious or affected to belong to a Breed Club and be involved in their activities? It's a very good way to learn more about ones breed and it is quite enjoyable to meet others who love the breed the same way. I've made some wonderful life-time friends that way. I've also come in contact with a few who were truly certifiable! I will always be grateful to have been able to attend a seminar at our Club's National Show that brought together the leading researchers on MVD from the US, UK and Sweden, with an opportunity to ask them questions after their presentation, and a Club-provided actual transcript of the seminar sent to us later. When I gave my vet a copy, he practically drooled on it! He said it was like going to a seminar on polio and having Jonas Salk as one of the speakers!

I strongly disagree with your desire for a purebred dog but wish to avoid a breeder who shows or is involved with the AKC. Neither is a guarantee of the breeder being a responsible "good" breeder, but it's a start. When one choses to own a purebred dog, they do so as you do - they like a breed's particular behavioral characteristics, and one often also wants a "pretty" dog. In order to assure that the puppy one is considering, it's important that a breeder regularly put their breeding stock in competition with others (typically an AKC show) in order to be sure ones dogs meet the Breed Standard - to at least see how they compare to others in their breed. "Kennel-blindness" is rampant - we love our dogs and think they're wonderful and beautiful. They may be wonderful, but they may be a far cry from the Breed Standard - so far, in fact, that people must ask what the breed of ones dog actually is. It should be obvious! Breeders who don't show and are not a member of the Breed Club for their breed are known as "back-yard breeders". They may love their dogs, may care for them well, but be totally ignorant about how to breed a sound, healthy dog, the health issues in their particular breed, and how to avoid breeding too closely. As is often said by architects and pros on the Building a House forum, they "don't know what they don't know" but this time it's not about a poorly placed powder room, it's about a living thing and the family who will give it a home. Most back-yard breeders have a "breeding pair" or one male and a bunch of females who are all bred to this one male. This is a really BAD idea from a genetic standpoint!

Yes, in many - perhaps even in all - breeds, there have been grave mistakes made in breeding. It is certainly true in my breed. Most of the mistakes were made without malice or greed - just a lot of ignorance. For decades, most breeders "line-bred" their dogs. Yes, it meant they were assured of producing very "typey" dogs, but they were also doubling up on genetic problem as well.

We've come along way in the past 20 years or so in the purebred dog world. Thanks to new scientific knowledge and technology, we can now often discover if a "bad" trait is carried by an animal, with a simple cheek swab and a DNA test. Polycystic kidney disease in cats has been greatly lessened due to this. If they cat carries this gene (a dominant one), then it is not bred...ever. The same is true of PRA in some breeds. In my breed, there was a time that 50% of dogs had early onset Mitral Valve Disease by age 5 and nearly 99% had it by age 10, if they were still alive. We had dogs dropping dead at ages 5-6 - some even younger. But do to research, both in the US and the UK and also Sweden, breeders now have a Breeding Protocol, that if followed, will raise the age of onset. Most at least follow the part about not breeding prior to age 2 1/2 and more are adding the remainder of the protocol which says that the sire and dam of these dogs must have been heart-clear at age 5. All clearances being required by a Boarded Veterinary Cardiologist. We have low cost health clinics at shows - pets are welcome at these as well.

There is still much room for improvement, and a buyer of a puppy in ANY breed must do his homework and know what questions to ask a breeder and how to evaluate the answers. But we're miles ahead of where we were when I got my first dog 35 years ago.

Do I respect all the breeders in my Club's Breed Club? Not at all! But I do respect several and have been lucky to get dogs from them. They have been a great joy in my life over the years, even if they do have a "fancy" registered name. They have no idea what it is!

anglo, the stuffy AKC world has more than its share of irresponsible breeders. I'm repeating a point of view that's held by many in the vet world and that's the source of my information.

And for me, no, not the type you refer to as backyard breeders. The source of my last several dogs has been one where potential breed pairs are screened genetically by veterinarians, matched by them for appropriateness for the health and traits of the puppies from among dozens and dozens and dozens of parent candidates (far more than any AKC operation would have access to from its own resources), and then further screened after birth to assure that what was wanted and not wanted for the traits of the litter was the result. Purebred, not AKC registered, and among the healthiest and breed typical dogs available anywhere.

I'll leave it at that. As I've said before, you and I have had very different life experiences and as a result often have very different opinions. That's fine, we can both be happy.