Family game: How to tell the royal family’s real name from their birth names
Family games are one of the oldest and most common forms of play, but they’re often hard to teach.
The real-life origins of royal family names aren’t known, and the family game has long been relegated to children’s birthday parties and birthday parties with their parents.
But a new study finds that royal family members’ real names have been found on their birth certificates dating back at least 150 years, even if they’re not named after the royal.
“We think we know the origins of the royal names,” says John T. Smith, an anthropologist at University College London and lead author of the new paper.
“But we don’t have any data to back it up.”
The findings were published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B. The researchers traced a royal birth certificate to a woman named Elizabeth, who was born in the 16th century in England.
But they found that she had a sister named Margaret, who lived about a mile away in a farmhouse in Essex.
The sisters’ birth names are almost identical to Elizabeth’s, so it’s likely that the names were used to help her parents get around, the researchers say.
Elizabeth’s birth name was Margaret, and Margaret’s was Elizabeth.
“This is pretty significant because we can actually find names on birth certificates that are almost 100 years older than Elizabeth,” Smith says.
“So it suggests that people are really doing things like taking a family game very seriously.”
The researchers found that Elizabeth’s mother’s maiden name was Mary and that Margaret’s mother was Mary.
That suggests that Elizabeth was born on June 14, 1609, a couple of years before Margaret’s, the team reports.
Elizabeth was just three years old at the time.
The research team also used the birth certificate data to look for a family tree of the family, which is a way to trace an ancestor’s lineage.
But the researchers found no records of Elizabeth’s family, so the family tree wasn’t complete.
“I think we’ll probably never know if Elizabeth was related to Margaret,” says Michael F. Cope, an evolutionary biologist at Indiana University.
“The family tree is an important tool for researchers to use, but it’s still an incomplete piece of information.”
In the new study, Smith and his colleagues looked at a family name from the family of Queen Victoria, the first queen of the United Kingdom, who died in 1834.
Victoria was the daughter of King George III and Queen Elizabeth, and she was the last queen of England.
“There’s an amazing amount of evidence for her family name, but we don-t know if she had any siblings,” Smith said.
The family tree also included two other queens, Queen Victoria’s mother, Queen Anne of Cleves, and her sister, Queen Margaret.
But there was no evidence of either of those women’s family names.
The only family tree that included Elizabeth’s maternal grandparents was one from the 17th century.
That’s the family name that the family has been using since the early 1600s, but Smith says that’s not accurate.
“It doesn’t really tell us much about how old the family is, it’s not really the best place to start,” Smith explains.
“You might have to go back a hundred years or two hundred years to find the family that they were related to.”
Elizabeth’s grandmother, Queen Elizabeth of Scots, was the only member of the household to have two daughters named Elizabeth and Margaret, but the rest of her family names were either not recorded, or the names didn’t match up.
The new research suggests that the real names of these women’s ancestors may have been based on information about the names of their mothers, rather than names on a family list.
“That might help to explain why these women have such complex names,” Smith concludes.
“If you have a really rich family history, you’re likely to have a lot of relatives, but you may not have many people to tell about it.”
Explore further: Researchers find evidence of a family history of royal birthnames