Alternative names for illegitimates sons of royalty

Onomastics
I have learn recently that some of the Danish kings bastards were given the name "Gyldenlove" or Gold Lion. That is way more cool than the uninspired if exact "FitzRoy", "Bourbon" or "Enriquez".

What alternative names could give some proud fathers like Henri IV of France, Philip III of Spain and Charles II of England to their left hand princelings ?
 
Fitz actually means son or descendant. Roy is a variant spelling on Roi or King. So, Fitzroy literally means son of the king. Can't get more proud than "He's my boy" for all the world to know by the name Fitzroy. At least in England.
 
Charles II also named some of his bastards Beauclerk which was Henry I's nickname which was Anglo-Norman for "fine scholar". So that's fairly cool.
 
Fitz actually means son or descendant. Roy is a variant spelling on Roi or King. So, Fitzroy literally means son of the king. Can't get more proud than "He's my boy" for all the world to know by the name Fitzroy. At least in England.

Fitz was standard naming in the middle Ages, but in the 17th c., it was a bastard name only, I think (FitzJames, FitzCharles, FitzClarence later). I am looking for something more original, like, I dunno, "Windsor" ; useful to hide the illegitimacy, isn't it ? Or with a bit more imagination "Crown" ?

On the side note, I always think odd Charles II did not name any of his kids "Stuart" or a variation. After all, he gave the traditional titles of his branch of the Stuart dynasty to his son, why not his name also ?
 
Fitz was standard naming in the middle Ages, but in the 17th c., it was a bastard name only, I think (FitzJames, FitzCharles, FitzClarence later). I am looking for something more original, like, I dunno, "Windsor" ; useful to hide the illegitimacy, isn't it ? Or with a bit more imagination "Crown" ?

On the side note, I always think odd Charles II did not name any of his kids "Stuart" or a variation. After all, he gave the traditional titles of his branch of the Stuart dynasty to his son, why not his name also ?

Yes, Fitz was a name given to the original bastard and on the whole back then being a bastard sucked; the church ruled and looked down anyone having sex for anything other than conception within marriage.

HOWEVER, if I'm the acknowledged bastard of a King, I get cool titles and revenue. I'm related to the King, he's made me Duke of Clarence & Gloucester & Kalamazoo and given me enough property and revenue to support the titles and I get raised with the best and the brightest of tutors and classmates. Why would I want to hide it?
 
On the side note, I always think odd Charles II did not name any of his kids "Stuart" or a variation. After all, he gave the traditional titles of his branch of the Stuart dynasty to his son, why not his name also ?

Because they weren't Stuarts, only legitimate children inherited the paternal name, bastards had to make do with allusions. Also considering the issues with James Croft/Scott, Duke of Monmouth giving him the surname Stuart would have only made things worse.
 
Yes, Fitz was a name given to the original bastard and on the whole back then being a bastard sucked; the church ruled and looked down anyone having sex for anything other than conception within marriage.

HOWEVER, if I'm the acknowledged bastard of a King, I get cool titles and revenue. I'm related to the King, he's made me Duke of Clarence & Gloucester & Kalamazoo and given me enough property and revenue to support the titles and I get raised with the best and the brightest of tutors and classmates. Why would I want to hide it?

I must respectfully object to this line of thinking!

Becoming the Duke of Kalamazoo seems to be an insult, not an honor! :p
 
Last edited:
I have learn recently that some of the Danish kings bastards were given the name "Gyldenlove" or Gold Lion. That is way more cool than the uninspired if exact "FitzRoy", "Bourbon" or "Enriquez".

What alternative names could give some proud fathers like Henri IV of France, Philip III of Spain and Charles II of England to their left hand princelings ?
Snow
 
Because they weren't Stuarts, only legitimate children inherited the paternal name, bastards had to make do with allusions. Also considering the issues with James Croft/Scott, Duke of Monmouth giving him the surname Stuart would have only made things worse.

Scottish kings gave the name Stuart all the time to their bastards (Robert II's John Stewart of Bute, Robert III's John Stewart of Ardgowan, James II's John Stewart of Sticks, James IV's James Stuart of Moray, James V's James Stuart of Moray, among many others) ; even Edward IV of England named his illegitimate son Arthur Plantagenet. I agree on the succession issue, Monmouth being...difficult.
 
You are right the Stewarts/Stuarts were different both from the English and most Continental royal families in doing that. So Charles II would have Scottish precedent to name his bastards Stuart I think it's unlikely, of all the Stuart Kings he spent the least time in Scotland and seemingly had the least affection for his ancestral homeland.
 
Top