News from around the web.
Go to Source
First, congrats to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of their first son, George Alexander Louis.
Now that their little bundle of joy has been named, our UK office has predicted ‘George’ will be the fourth most popular baby name in the United Kingdom in 2014, with 1,400 more Georges to be born then in 2013. The birth of a royal baby typically increases the popularity of that name by almost a third (32 percent) the year following the birth. This equates to an average of 1,400 babies born in the UK in the year following a royal birth that are given the same royal name.
With 4,340 George’s born each year in the UK, this trend predicts a total of 5,740 being born in 2014 – pushing it from 12th position to the fourth most popular baby name for a boy.
“The royals are always trendsetters for the population, and Prince William and Princess Kate have been no exception. If history is any indication, we fully expect George to jump in popularity amongst UK baby names.” ~ Michelle Ercanbrack, a Family Historian at Ancestry.com.
The royal naming pattern was uncovered through historical analysis of yearly birth indexes available on Ancestry.com, which detail every baby born in England and Wales from 1835 to 2005 (which is the date range of the Birth Indexes available on the site). The number of babies with the same name as a royal baby in the year of the royal’s birth was compared with the number in the following year. Every royal from King Edward VII (born in 1841) to Princess Eugenie (born in 1990) was included in the study (research conducted by Ancestry.co.uk). Every royal whose birth year (and the consecutive year) are within the date range of 1841 to 2005 included in the study. For a full list of royals see Table 1. The average increase in the number of babies born with a royal name after that royal was born in actual terms is 1,402, and in percentage terms is 32 percent. These average figures exclude King George V because the birth figures for the year after his birth are obscured by the Cholera pandemic of 1866.
The research we did uncovered these specific impacts of previous royal births:
- Prince Andrew’s birth was found to have the biggest impact on expecting parents, with the number of ‘Andrews’ born in 1961 increasing by more than 5,500 compared to the year of his birth (1960).
- In terms of percentages, the birth of Zara Phillips saw the biggest rise in popularity. The number of ‘Zaras’ increased by 92 percent the year after her birth.
- Other royals who had a significant impact on baby names include Princess Anne (increasing the popularity of ‘Anne’ by 36 percent and 1,507 total babies), Princess Margaret (21 percent, 3,760 babies), Peter Phillips (31 percent, 2,607 babies), Prince William (23 percent, 2,581 babies) and King George VI (3 percent, 1,431 babies).
- Prince Harry, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie- the youngest of the royals- had only a small impact on the actual number of babies given their names. To the contrary, by percentage their births expanded the popularity of their names by 55 percent, 37 percent and 69 percent respectively.
- On average, the male royal babies were found to have a bigger impact in volume (resulting in an average of 1,664 instances of the name the following year, as opposed to 1,010 for girls), yet female royal babies had the largest impact by percentage, increasing the popularity of their names by 43 percent, compared to 24 percent for boys. An explanation for this difference could be that female royals have typically had more unusual names such as Eugenie or Zara that were not previously popular.
In fact, the only royal born in the past 170 years whose name actually decreased in popularity after his birth was King George V, with the number of ‘Georges’ born in 1866 falling by more than 7,000 compared to the year before**. A likely explanation for this disruption in the naming trend could be the impact of London’s cholera pandemic on the population, as many people perished during this period.
The impact a royal birth has on the popularity of that name:
|Royal Name||Birth Year||Number of babies with royal name during the year of birth||Number of babies with royal name the year after birth||Actual / percentage increase|
|King Edward VII||1841||8,930||9,661||+731 / 8%|
|King George V||1865||33,824||26,437||-7,387 / -21%|
|King Edward VIII||1894||22,221||22,926||+705 / 3%|
|King George VI||1895||41,653||43,084||+1,431 / 3%|
|Queen Elizabeth II||1926||5,839||6,209||+370 / 6%|
|Princess Margaret||1930||17,695||21,455||+3,760 / 21%|
|Prince Charles||1948||1,974||2,941||+967 / 49%|
|Princess Anne||1950||4,234||5,741||+1,507 / 36%|
|Prince Andrew||1960||12,534||18,081||+5,547 / 44%|
|Prince Edward||1964||1,597||1,624||+27 / 2%|
|Peter Phillips||1977||8,381||10,988||+2,607 / 31%|
|Zara Phillips||1981||166||320||+154 / 92%|
|Prince William||1982||11,058||13,639||+2,581 / 23%|
|Prince Harry||1984||695||1,076||+381 / 55%|
|Princess Beatrice||1988||231||317||+86 / 37%|
|Princess Eugenie||1990||39||66||+27 / 69%|
*** Reduction caused by Cholera pandemic of 1866
Derived from the Greek name Georgious, which means farmer, George has been a British staple name for centuries and is the third most common name for English monarchs (6 times) since 1066 after Henry (8 times) and Edward (8 times).
So, if you happen to have a child in the next year, do you think you will be naming him George, or her Georgina?
THE FINE PRINT: Forward Looking Statements. This blog post contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated by these forward-looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include our ability to acquire subscribers, to provide desired content and product features to our subscribers and to otherwise satisfy customer expectations. Information concerning additional factors that could cause events or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements is contained under the caption “Risk Factors” in our Annual Report, and in discussions in other of our Securities and Exchange Commission filings. These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as representing our views as of any subsequent date and we assume no obligation to publicly update or revise these forward-looking statements.