I heard a story about this....is it true? And why?

This is false.

There is one King John of England. He was the youngest son of King Henry II. He was born in 1166, assumed the throne in 1199 when his elder brother, Richard the Lionhearted (you may have heard of him) died without a son. King John died in 1216 and passed on the crown to his son, King Henry III.

King John was the third Plantagenet King

No, no no, the name thing.... it is a more 'recent' rule.

Well, it sounds highly unlikely to me. Where did you hear such a peculiar thing? Presumably no king would *want* to be called John, because of the unhappy associations (King John is traditionally regarded as a Weak Man but a Bad King, or possibly vice versa), but that's not the same. Prince Charles, similarly, apparently does not wish to be known as Charles III when he becomes king, because of the associations with Charles I. Of course, such concerns are pretty pointless because the average British person wouldn't have the faintest idea who Charles I was or what he did, far less King John.

Now, if a king were *Catholic*, that would be a whole different matter...

My dad said someone told him, so...

I told him the John thing with the Magna Carter, but he wasn't convinced.

This is false.

There is one King John of England. He was the youngest son of King Henry II. He was born in 1166, assumed the throne in 1199 when his elder brother, Richard the Lionhearted (you may have heard of him) died without a son. King John died in 1216 and passed on the crown to his son, King Henry III.

King John was the third Plantagenet King

Yeah, that's why there won't name any kings John anymore, because that King John was a miserable failure.

Essentially, they "retired" the name.

There's one other name (Richard?) that they retired because he was terrible. I'll have to look that up.

I always remeber Price John who use to hunt robin hood, and i think he grew up to make the magna carta

@nobody, the point is that it wasn't him who made the Magna charta, but his barons/dukes/etc. ... ;)

mitsho

So what legacy does Prince William have?

William I- Bastard fascist invader.
William II- Transvestite murder victim.
William III- Hunchback Dutch invader.
William IV- Idiot pro-slavery campaigner.

"Henceforth, all the toilets of the land shall be known as....johns!" :lol:

They haven't named another king Stephen either, since the first one was a disaster. I'm not sure if there's been a Prince Stephen, but there was a prince John of Gaunt.

After the experiences England had with their Richards and we had with ours, I think the name is safely retired. Sorry, Mr. Gephardt.

They haven't named another king Stephen either, since the first one was a disaster. I'm not sure if there's been a Prince Stephen, but there was a prince John of Gaunt.

After the experiences England had with their Richards and we had with ours, I think the name is safely retired. Sorry, Mr. Gephardt.

What, don't you think Richard Cheney is doing a swell job as vice-president? Or do you just hate America?

(insert sarcastic smiley here)

For some reason, there haven't been a second Alfred of Athelstan either. I guess they were too hard to follow.

It also spares us another Aethelred.

I'm still holding out hope for Penda II, but I think the current dynasty is a bit too new-fangled for that sort of thing.

recently they had that george, edward fling goin'

"Henceforth, all the toilets of the land shall be known as....johns!" :lol:
You beat me to it. I love that movie

So what legacy does Prince William have?

William I- Bastard fascist invader.
William II- Transvestite murder victim.
William III- Hunchback Dutch invader.
William IV- Idiot pro-slavery campaigner.

makes me wonder what william V is gonna be like!

makes me wonder what william V is gonna be like!
party pooper prince! :D :lol:

It comes from Robert III of Scotland who's real name was John, but who thought the name was cursed because of John of England, John the Good of France, and most importantly John Balliol, who was extremely unpopular in Scotland by that point after he didn't offer much support for the rebellions the Scots were waging against the English in his name. Robert the Bruce hated him for family reasons, and since he was credited as the saviour of Scotland, his opinion still held considerable sway, even though he was dead for about 60 years at that point. Also, John's son made several attempts (successfully, although it didn't last for long) to usurp the throne from the House of Bruce in the 1330s.

Anyways, it didn't work. Robert III was a terrible king regardless.

I'm still holding out hope for Penda II, but I think the current dynasty is a bit too new-fangled for that sort of thing.
That would be great.
The Norwegians are keeping up the great naming game; the newborn royal baby will be known as Sverre II, the first Norwegian king named Sverre since 1202.
:thumbsup:

I doubt we'll ever see another "Erik the lisping and halting" on the Swedish throne, though. :(

Stupid database... :mad:

The English monarchy should dig out some old classics. Sledda, Eorcenbert, Pappo, Beli Mawr....

Well, given Charles' reported reluctance to be called Charles when he becomes king, perhaps he's browsing that list even as we speak. I think his image would be massively improved if he called himself King Eorcenbert.

Well, given Charles' reported reluctance to be called Charles when he becomes king, perhaps he's browsing that list even as we speak. I think his image would be massively improved if he called himself King Eorcenbert.
:lol: Way too English for someone of such mixed pedigree! I doubt if he will last on the throne as long either! Isn't he too much of a Pagan tree hugger to be named after the first Christian King of Kent?

That's true! Penda II it is, then, without a doubt.

Given his previous desires to be a female sanitary product, one would think that Cnut would be eminently suitable.

So what legacy does Prince William have?

William I- Bastard fascist invader.
William II- Transvestite murder victim.
William III- Hunchback Dutch invader.
William IV- Idiot pro-slavery campaigner.
William III was not a hunchback, you're thinking of prince William IV, stadtholder of Holland from 1745, who married an English princess.
So he did have a tie to England.

William III was the opponent of Louis XIV, while William IV was overseeing the final fall of Holland as a world power.

No, I'm definitely thinking of William III of England. The bisexual midget who reigned 1688- 1702.

Were were meant to have one or two Arthurs on the English throne as well but they died.

Personally i don't think that William III the Orange should be bashed. He was invited to take the throne and did it almost without sheding any blood. He was also the first king to accept the power of Parliament (unlike the previous which tried to take it away) and only used his veto 2 times through out the reign. After him the veto never has been used.

I was under the impression that Queen Anne was the last to do that, when she withheld her assent to the Scottish Militia Bill in 1707.

My bad i was not aware of that fact.

I'd be most worried about being named James.

James I - Assassinated in a sewer
James II - Blown up in an accident with a cannon
James III - Killed in battle fleeing for his life
James IV - Killed in battle
James V - Grieved to death at age 30
James VI/I - Did pretty well
James VII/II - Deposed

No, I'm definitely thinking of William III of England. The bisexual midget who reigned 1688- 1702.
But my point was he did not have a hunchback, that was William IV.

I'd be most worried about being named James.

James I - Assassinated in a sewer
James II - Blown up in an accident with a cannon
James III - Killed in battle fleeing for his life
James IV - Killed in battle
James V - Grieved to death at age 30
James VI/I - Did pretty well
James VII/II - Deposed
That's because most of them were Scottish kings, and we all know that was one of the worst jobs of the Middle Ages. :D

Well, given Charles' reported reluctance to be called Charles when he becomes king, perhaps he's browsing that list even as we speak.

Well that sounds interesting. Is he going to separate Prince Charles from King X with this move? Or is there some deeper anti-Charleism?

If I may propose, let him be King Zardoz I !

Well, given Charles' reported reluctance to be called Charles when he becomes king, perhaps he's browsing that list even as we speak. I think his image would be massively improved if he called himself King Eorcenbert.

He knows what happened the last time a King Charles came after a Queen Lizzie. He doesn't want to lose his head. :D