To wonder whether, as per this claim, Annabel was really seen as a 'yuppie' name in the 80s?

[Giselle374]

I read Lady Colin Campbell's book a while ago about Harry & Meghan. A lot of the claims seemed ridiculous- they can certainly be criticised but the book went beyond reasonable. Anyway, one of the points I found odd was that Campbell claimed naming rules have always been very strict for royals, and mentioned an earlier name choice for Beatrice being vetoed.
I googled and found this choice was Annabel, which the Queen apparently vetoed for being 'too yuppie'. Was it really seen that way in the 80s or was this just some eccentricity of hers? I was born early 2000s and knew quite a few Annabels and Isabel/Isabellas, also one Arabella. It just seemed like a classic name, hardly one to complain about.
Not a traditional royal one : but then she was OK with Zara.

(Not the main point, but while I think they were wrong to choose Lilibet, I didn't agree with Campbell's argument that the Annabel veto meant the Queen remained just as strict in the 2010s. She clearly wasn't if she allowed Savannah, Sienna and Mia, all nice names but arguably more non traditional than Annabel)

I knew a charming Annabel on my university course in the 1970s.

That makes sense.
Re Sonia not being the name she went by, is that because of notoriety associated with the original Sonia's mother Alice (I assume the ancestor you mean?)

I actually went down a rabbit hole on the club... 🤣

Interestingly, apparently Annabel's ended up being the first nightclub the Queen went to since her marriage (in the 2000s). By this time it doesn't seem to have been as scandalous though... and clearly Fergie did like it...!

'Sarah Ferguson and Diana, Princess of Wales went to Annabel's disguised as police officers a few days before Ferguson's wedding to Prince Andrew in July 1986.[4] The social commentator Peter York said that someone once described Annabel's as being where the "middle-aged meets the Middle East" and that it had represented the "high point of aspiration" in the 1980s but that it was unsustainiable if it only catered to Sloane Rangers.[10]

In the wake of the collapse of Lloyd's of London, Birley banned members from paying on credit.[8] The club was seen as stuffy and old fashioned by the late 1990s with its heyday in the 1970s and 1980s. After suffering a decline in his health and mobility, Birley brought his two children, Robin and India Jane Birley, into the management of the club for the first time.[9][15] The siblings co-managed Annabel's in the years before Birley's death in 2007. Robin ran the company and India Jane, responsible for the look and decoration of the club, redesigned and relaunched Annabel's with Robin in 2003. Their changes led to the arrival of a younger crowd to the club and the revival of its popularity.[16] Queen Elizabeth II visited the club in 2003 for a dinner to celebrate the 70th birthday of one of her Ladies of the Bedchamber, Virginia Ogilvy, Countess of Airlie.[17] It was the first time that the Queen had been in a nightclub since she was married.[17] The Queen drank a gin martini (without lemon).[17]'

You are right. Apologies. There was some social overlap in places like Annabel’s.

So on the basis of the conversation above I’d say that in the 70s Annabel was a Sloane Ranger name, not a yuppy name.

Queen Camilla has a sister called Annabel.

I would say it’s more Sloaney.

Oh right, sorry. I thought she was married to Spencer. I did think that might have been a but frowned on by the royal family.

You know, I think you are right! I had almost forgotten about Sloanes.

I suspect that is exactly why.

Yet Queen Camilla has a sister called Annabel.

Because his name was Albert.

Yes it was. All wearing velvet blazers and pie crust collars.

Why would he suddenly decide to be called Charles if his name is Charlie?
Doesn't make sense. You and others have broken the link between Charlie and Charles. In your case because you don't like Charles.

Have you told him that Charlie is short for Charles?
Just because names sound similar doesn't mean that they're the same.

In any case, it would still make more sense to put Charles on the birth certificate not Charlie.
It's not doing any harm there sitting on the birth certificate and would only be used on official documents.

Surely it's easier to say, 'call me Charlie' should people call him Charles.
It's easy enough to shorten it. It's a natural thing to do but people rarely lengthen names.

You dont have to say that anybody can ask others to address them by whatever name, this is obvious.

Incidentally, I know a few Charlie's. All over 50, all Charles on the birth certificate.

The mother of one of them hates, hates it when people call him Charlie.

Don’t understand the “yet” here. Annabel Elliott was born in ‘48. Perhaps the OP is too young f to have heard of Annabel’s nightclub in Mayfair. Definitely for the upper crust and named after James Goldsmith’s wife Lady Annabel, born Annabel Vane-Tempest-Stewart in ‘49. Grand enough for you?

Queen Camilla still sounds odd to me, though.

Of course he knows Charlie is a diminutive of Charles! He (and several other Charlies he is/has been friends with) have managed to go to good universities and have careers, whilst all being known as Charlie - it really isn't the the problem you seem to think it is.
Maybe it's because all the Charlies (no apostrophe) you know are over 50, whereas they are all under 30, but nobody gives a toss.

Lilibet is just silly. It’s not even a real name.

Being a sloane ranger was like being in a club - you were either in or you were out! It was all about the clothes, the names, the school and university you went to, the holidays, your background, the lifestyle, etc.

Annabelle was the ultimate sloane name in the 80s and 90s. Conjures up an image an 'Ok yah' woman living in a very comfortable, upper middle class bubble.

How weird I knew quite a few Melissas . None of them could remotely be called posh

Yes, I know, that was my point. His name was Albert but when he became king he chose to be King Edward, not King Albert.

It's not a problem for me.
All this is is a discussion of names.

I agree. Would your typical Sloane have gone to university though?
Let's be honest here, the massive university expansion business has over inflated degrees.
I'm just imagining that it was not a given then that a woman of that background would have gone to university given the era?

Yes, some sloanes went to university. I was at a red brick university in the early 90s. I wasn't aware it was a popular choice with sloanes until I got there.

It soon became very clear that the type of secondary school you went to was very important if you were in the sloane club or not! It became funny how often I was asked which school I went to by the sloane types and how quickly they judged you because of this.

They really did look like clones wearing very similar clothes with very little individuality. We used to jokingly call them clones!

How things have changed, it's anything but a yuppie name now, more council estate I would say!

I knew of one sloane who admitted she went to university to meet a husband. That was her primary goal. She didn't really care about the course she was doing!