King Constantine of England

Explicitly Christian, yes, but Constantine is a very Orthodox name too - it'd probably be associated with the Byzantine Empire, if anything.

Isn't there a rule that there can never be another King John?

Well its not really a rule

One of Henry IV's sons was John and could have become king

George V's youngest son was called John

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The numbers reset in England - the normans didn't invade Scotland. James was known as James the sixth and first in Scotland. So he would in all likelihood have ben Constatine the IV and I.
The rules have since changed, after protests in Scotland in the 1950s that the new Queen should not be called Elizabeth II in Scotland, as the previous Elizabeth had not been Queen of Scotland. Now, any monarch gets the higher number from the English and Scottish sequences, starting with William the Conqueror (William I) and the quasi-mythical 5th-century Pictish King Drest I respectively. So, for instance, another Richard would be Richard IV in both countries- but a David would be David III, an Alexander would be Alexander IV, and a Drest would be Drest XI!

Isn't there a rule that there can never be another King John?
No- John, along with Stephen, Philip and Charles, is a name that is unlikely to be repeated due to its bad record, but there's no rule. The only name that there's a rule against using is Albert, as Queen Victoria said that there should never be a King Albert after Prince Albert died. Her eldest son, Albert Edward, took the throne as Edward VII rather than Albert I.
 
Explicitly Christian, yes, but Constantine is a very Orthodox name too - it'd probably be associated with the Byzantine Empire, if anything.

Isn't there a rule that there can never be another King John?

Yeah, but no-one in 15th or 16th century Britain was particularly bothered about the orthodox church, were they? In that religiously sensitive time, the asociation with catholicism would have been enough to provoke people.
 
But I don't see how it's an explicitly Catholic name. I can't think of any Popes of that name, and if anything it draws allusions to the legitimacy of the state having a significant role in, if not control over, the Church and the religion of the people. Constantine brought Christianity to the Romans, and now the English Constantine will similarly bring the enlightenment of the correct faith to his subjects.
 
But I don't see how it's an explicitly Catholic name.

Not explicitly Catholic perhaps, but explicitly Roman, (I mean here in the very broadest sense of the word) absolutely, which is effectively as bad. And needless to say, anything that smacked of being Roman was not exactly flavour of the week in this period.

(There was actually a Pope Constantine IIRC, but he wasn't of any signifigance)
 
I think that it's a name which could go either way. IIRC "Mary" was a fairly Papist name, but that wasn't an issue with the second of that name.

I don't think that being called Constantine would be a deal breaker, is all.
 
Explicitly Christian, yes, but Constantine is a very Orthodox name too - it'd probably be associated with the Byzantine Empire, if anything.

Isn't there a rule that there can never be another King John?


No there isnt a rule against Johns... its more like a tradition... John Lackland was one of the worst monarchs and every other prince named john died quickly and thus were spread rumours that the name was cursed...
There is a Constantine in the British line of succession... Former King Constantine II of Greece... But he is in 428th place in the line so i dont think he has any serious chance of becoming King of Great Britain...:D
 
Top