Saints Names that future Popes could select (that haven't yet been used as regnal names)

[BartholomewB]

When I was a school boy (many years ago), word on the playground was that the world will end on the election of Pope Peter II.

That comes from the so-called “Prophecy of St. Malachy”. When you say your schooldays were “many years ago,” surely you don’t mean as long ago as 1595!
I first heard about this prophecy in 1978, when the two conclaves within the space of a few weeks gave rise to all kinds of pseudo-religious speculation. But (from memory) I don’t think they said “the end of the world,” just “the end of the papacy.”

Prophecy of the Popes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[phil19034]

Maybe. I don’t really see the popes taking their cue from the British monarchs, though.

I wouldn’t see it as much as taking cue vs determining that Regal names would have become culturally outdated.

Heck, many Religious no longer change their names when entering a Religious Order.

So it’s a practice that is dying. If the King of England doesn’t do it, then the Papacy will most likely be the last major future to take a Regal name.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Dedios:

I sometimes wonder if a man might take his own name when elected pope, e.g. could Thomas Jones become Pope Thomas. (No doubt everyone would call him Pope Tom?) Perhaps taking your own name might be considered pride.

Honestly, I think a lot will ride on what Prince Charles does when he become King of England (even though he’s not Catholic).

If Prince Charles keeps the name Charles (or if Prince William becomes King William), it will be an indication that the secular world is done with Regal names - which might inspire a future Pope to keep his given Christian name (assuming he has a Christian name).

So I’m sure future Popes will be looking closely at what then next two Kings of England do (even though they are not Catholic)

God Bless

Why would they not already look to Queen Elizabeth, who kept her name?

Because I THINK many considered her an exception. When she was born, her parents never thought she would become Queen, so she wasn’t given all the names like she gave Charles.

She was simply born Elizabeth Alexandra Mary. The English monarchs typically choose one of the several given names.

For example: her Uncle, who was born in the direct line was named: “Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David.” He went by David until it was time to pick a Regal name and he choose Edward. When he abdicated, his younger brother (who only had 4 names: “Albert Frederick Arthur George” and went by Albert) became King and selected “George” as his Regal name.

Elizabeth was only born with 3 names, and Elizabeth was the most English of the three and since it was already what she was going by, it make it pretty easy for her to keep Elizabeth without much fuss. Plus, it linked her to one of the most famous Queens in English history.

So again, not a big deal.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

If Prince Charles keeps the name Charles (or if Prince William becomes King William), it will be an indication that the secular world is done with Regal names - which might inspire a future Pope to keep his given Christian name (assuming he has a Christian name).

The kings and queens of England have always kept their own names – usually their first name, less often their middle name. George VI, the father of the present queen, was baptized Albert Frederick Arthur George. I’m pretty sure that no king or queen of England has ever adopted a regnal name that was different from their baptismal names.

Correct, they pick a Regal name from one of the several names they were given. But they don’t always pick the name they go by as their Regal name.

 

[BartholomewB]

So it’s a practice that is dying.

It’s not a practice that is dying. As far as the kings and queens of England are concerned, it’s a practice that has never been born.

 

[Joe_5859]

Ah, I see what you’re saying. It’s an interesting thought. It does seem like people are less beholden to convention in general. John Paul taking two names was a first. And then Francis choosing a name that had never been chosen before was also a first. (As far as I can tell, every pope who did not keep his own name has chosen the name of some other previous pope—John Paul chose the names of two of his predecessors, so Francis was the first to choose a completely new name.)

So if we had a bishop with a name like Joseph or Patrick or Thomas, and they said, “I’ll just stick with my own name because it’s the name of a great saint already”, I wouldn’t necessarily be that surprised.

 

[CTBcin]

I sometimes wonder if a man might take his own name when elected pope, e.g. could Thomas Jones become Pope Thomas. (No doubt everyone would call him Pope Tom?) Perhaps taking your own name might be considered pride.

Many popes have kept their baptismal name, but the last time this occurred was hundreds of years ago. I don’t see anything wrong with keeping one’s baptismal name, though taking a new name as a pope has become an established tradition.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

So it’s a practice that is dying.

It’s not a practice that is dying. As far as the kings and queens of England are concerned, it’s practice that has never been born.

That’s not what I meant. For example: King Philip of Spain uses his first name. So did his father King Juan Carlos.

Queen Margrethe II of Denmark used her first name when she became Queen in 1972, while her Father used his second name.

King Carl XVI of Sweeden used his first name when he became king in 1973, while the previous king (his grandfather) used his fifth name.

So, what I mean is that there are very few European heads of states today who adopt Regal names. The trend, in the TV era seems is be keeping their given names.

That’s the only reason why I think what Prince Charles and/or Prince William do will have an INFLUENCE. I don’t think it will dictate what future Popes do, but I think it could be used by a future Pope to keep his given name.

 

[adgloriam]

I’ve always rooted for another Pope Sixtus. He would have to have a sense of humor. Pope Sixtus V famously declared: “I shall be the last of my name. No one would be foolish enough to become Sixtus the Sixth.” In the Latin, it would be ‘Sixtus Sextus’.

THAT’S PERFECT !! BEST POST IN THE THREAD SO FAR

 

[adgloriam]

John Paul III.

 

[BartholomewB]

The trend, in the TV era seems is be keeping their given names.

No, it has nothing to do with “the TV era.” In England, at least, the only kings and queens who ever changed their regnal names were two or three who were of foreign origin and Anglicized their names. For instance, William III (reigned 1689-1702) was Dutch and his baptismal name was Willem. George I (1714-1727) was German and his baptismal name was Georg. That’s all. No king or queen of England ever adopted a wholly different regnal name, which is what every pope has done since 1555.

 

[That_Flint_Guy]

Has anybody ever been canonized as a saint while still alive? (Off topic, but curious to know.)

 

[CTBcin]

Has anybody ever been canonized as a saint while still alive? (Off topic, but curious to know.)

As far as I know, no. One has to be dead first. Catholics don’t believe in “once saved always saved”, so one can still lose their salvation while still alive. I’ve never heard of someone being canonized while still alive.

However, I’ve often heard people referred to informally as “living saints”, which is just a way to express that someone is really holy.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

In the olden days people didn’t have last names

 

[babochka]

In the olden days people didn’t have last names

I don’t believe Queen Elizabeth has a last name, ether.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Look. It’s really no big deal.
I just threw an idea out there.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

The trend, in the TV era seems is be keeping their given names.

No, it has nothing to do with “the TV era.” In England, at least, the only kings and queens who ever changed their regnal names were two or three who were of foreign origin and Anglicized their names. For instance, William III (reigned 1689-1702) was Dutch and his baptismal name was Willem. George I (1714-1727) was German and his baptismal name was Georg. That’s all. No king or queen of England ever adopted a wholly different regnal name, which is what every pope has done since 1555.

I don’t think we are talking about the same thing. I’m talking about the name they went by personally before becoming the monarch. For example: King Edward VIII was known as Edward, Prince of Wales but he personally used David.

Prince Albert, Duke of York used one of his middle names to become King George VI

Prince Albert chose George VI
David chose Edward VIII
Prince Albert Edward, Prince of Wales chose Edward VII
Queen Victoria was known as Princess Alexandrina Victoria of Kent and dropped her first name to become Queen Victoria.

So while not every single Monarch did it, not all English Monarchs used their first name or familiar name as their Regal name. Some one of their other several names. But yes, I know they didn’t pick a name that was never given to them at birth like the Popes do.

 

[Glennon_P]

I don’t believe Queen Elizabeth has a last name, ether.

Actually, she does. Her family’s last name is officially Windsor. Prince Philip’s family’s last name is Mountbatten. I believe she goes by “Windsor” but her children are “Mounbatten-Windsor”.

(Being a Yankee, however, I could be completely wrong and am open to fraternal correction by my friends across the pond.)

 

[phil19034]

babochka:

I don’t believe Queen Elizabeth has a last name, ether.

Actually, she does. Her family’s last name is officially Windsor. Prince Philip’s family’s last name is Mountbatten. I believe she goes by “Windsor” but her children are “Mounbatten-Windsor”.

(Being a Yankee, however, I could be completely wrong and am open to fraternal correction by my friends across the pond.)

No, technically, she doesn’t have a last name. She’s a member of the House of Windsor, but that’s not technically her last name.

Her grandchildren & great-grandchildren who are not born with the title of Prince/Princess do use Mounbatten-Windsor as their last name.

However, members of the Royal family who are a Prince or Princess at birth do not have a last name. And when needed (for example military service) use Windsor as their last name for the Military, because the monarch is “House of Windsor” not Mounbatten-Windsor.

For example, Prince Harry’s son is not a prince at birth. So his name is “Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor,” while Prince Harry’s name is simply “Henry Charles Albert David”

 

[CRM_Brother]

While the primary line of the royal family (Queen’s children, Prince Charles’ children, Prince William’s children, etc) does not have an official last name at birth, they do use Mounbatten-Windsor as a legal last name when it is a legal requirement, such as on marriage certificates outside of the line of primogeniture and litigation. So too did the members of the royal family take up semi legal last names for their daily lives. Often, the father or mother take the name of the seat of their highest level of peerage as the last name for their children. Thus Princes William and Harry, as children of Charles, Prince of Wales, went to school as William and Harry Wales. So too did Princes William and Harry enter the military as Lieutenant and Cadet Wales respectively. As Prince William’s highest level of peerage is Duke of Cambridge, his son attends school as George Cambridge.