Question: English royalty and name John

This statement is repeated countless time on this forum-name John was not given among English Royal Family due to memory of John Lackland. But name 'John' was given to royal sons long after Softsword. It was common among Plantagenets and later also present among Yorks and Lancastrians. Also IIRC king John was viewed during Tudor times as English hero, who opposed the pope. So when name 'John' really became unacceptable for royal babies?
 
This statement is repeated countless time on this forum-name John was not given among English Royal Family due to memory of John Lackland. But name 'John' was given to royal sons long after Softsword. It was common among Plantagenets and later also present among Yorks and Lancastrians. Also IIRC king John was viewed during Tudor times as English hero, who opposed the pope. So when name 'John' really became unacceptable for royal babies?

1919, death of Prince John.
 
John was a sort of uncommon name for royalty in general outside of the various Ioannes in Constantinople
 
Hey, what about all the french, breton and burgundian Jean running around then? And all the various Juans, Joans and Joao in the iberian peninsula? Not to mention the Scottish James as well. Not so unusual
 
And Ivans in Russia. About England, probably the best way to "restore" the name would be to have John of Gaunt become king.
 
Note that most royals have multiple names. The Prince of Wales who became Edward viii, before the whole Wallis Simpson thing blew up, was known to everyone as David. But he picked another of his string of names, namely Edward, as his regnal name.
I imagine a hypothetical John Arthur William George would reign as William or George.
 
Hey, what about all the french, breton and burgundian Jean running around then? And all the various Juans, Joans and Joao in the iberian peninsula? Not to mention the Scottish James as well. Not so unusual

James aside, most of these weren’t super super common. Only Joao and John in Sweden had more than one or two Kings of such a name (Poland had 3) - which was my point. It’s not crazy unusual for England to only have one John
 
This statement is repeated countless time on this forum-name John was not given among English Royal Family due to memory of John Lackland. But name 'John' was given to royal sons long after Softsword. It was common among Plantagenets and later also present among Yorks and Lancastrians. Also IIRC king John was viewed during Tudor times as English hero, who opposed the pope. So when name 'John' really became unacceptable for royal babies?

I didn't know that was the reason it was unpopular. I thought it was because it just went out of fashion among the aristocracy. And when it was given, it was to younger sons. Then the Germans turned up in the 1800s.......and got stuck on George like a broken record.......

Names trend. In Tudor times, the sure way to lose your money was to bet that Henry (either one) would name a son Richard. I've already mentioned the Hanoverians.
 
I didn't know that was the reason it was unpopular. I thought it was because it just went out of fashion among the aristocracy. And when it was given, it was to younger sons. Then the Germans turned up in the 1800s.......and got stuck on George like a broken record.......

Too bad the Austrians never showed up for an endless line of English Ferdinand and Maximilian Kings
 
John was common as first part of double names among German dukes during 16/17th century (John George, John Frederick, John William etc.), also two of Polish Johns have second names (John Albert and John Casimir), Sigismund II had also nephew named John Sigismund (same as short living son of king John Casimir). So as single name John was not very common outside Iberian royalty, but still frequent in double names. So perhaps Britain could adapt German fashion of double names among monarchs and instead of chain of Georges had John George (or William, Henry, Albert) I, II, III...
 
Last edited:
And Ivans in Russia. About England, probably the best way to "restore" the name would be to have John of Gaunt become king.

Didn't John of Gaunt get pretty unpopular though? And if he comes to throne through Richard II dying young he could easily be tarred as a murderer.

You could also potentially do something with John de la Pole Earl of Lincoln, nephew and alleged heir of Richard III. There's also John Duke of Bedford, who would have become king if his nephew Henry VI died young or was never born, and John of Eltham Earl of Cornwall, who would have become king if Edward III died young.
 
The name eventually accumulated an unfortunate reputation in some courts of Western Europe.

Robert III of Scotland was originally called John but changed his name when he became king, being conscious of the dismal reigns of John of England, John Baliol of Scotland and John the Good of France.
 
The name eventually accumulated an unfortunate reputation in some courts of Western Europe.

Robert III of Scotland was originally called John but changed his name when he became king, being conscious of the dismal reigns of John of England, John Baliol of Scotland and John the Good of France.
Which could be easily butterflied away if some John the Great happened to sit on the throne.
 
Too bad the Austrians never showed up for an endless line of English Ferdinand and Maximilian Kings
Longest line of Habsburg Ferdinands on HRE throne were just two in row, Habsburgs were more into Philips.

If line of James Kings in Scotland (also rare name among European royalty) was possible then long line of Johns also could appear by chance in England. Sometimes even fifth son with could get the throne and then give his name, even unusual for dynasty to his own son changing existing trend.
 
I think it was a case of trending: you name your heirs after yourself or a successful king. The Johns weren't that successful, ergo, it's a name for a younger or a 'middle' name. Personally, I'm surprised there aren't a slew of Arthurs.
 
I will also point out that most royals named John/Ivan/Jean/etc either had a LOT of bad luck, were sickly, or turned into insane tyrants. I could see plenty of royal families being more than a little spooked by all of the Kings/Princes/etc named John that had such messed up lives and think that the name has bad luck attached to it.
 
Top