Question: English royalty and name John

Common custom among royalty was to name firstborn son either after father or grandfather and second son after father (unless firstborn was named after father already). With younger sons there was more variation-name could be determined by day of birth (like with John Albert of Poland, born on 27 December, feast of St John the Evangelist) or parent(s)' favorite saint (like with Sigismund of Luxembourg). Lack of saints named Arthur could explain lack of Arties on the throne, although once introduced, say by surviving Arthur Tudor, long lines of Arthurs are likely due to his son/grandson being named after him.
 
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.
It was just by chance. There were also plenty of successful and capable kings named John, just not in England/Scotland/France.
England generally has plenty of "spoiled" royal names (Charles, James, John, Richard)
 
The Rise of Christian Names in the Thirteenth Century: A Case Study of the English Nobility
http://www.snsbi.org.uk/Nomina_articles/Nomina_28_Morris.pdf

Biblical names were fairly rare in England until the 13th century when suddenly they were everywhere and John and William seized the number one and two spots in popularity. That John is not the most common given name for English monarchy does indicate that there was a bias against it when compared to the rest of the English nobility.
 
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.

Arthur might have lost a bit of its lustre after the first two English royals with the name died in their teens.

Lack of saints named Arthur could explain lack of Arties on the throne, although once introduced, say by surviving Arthur Tudor, long lines of Arthurs are likely due to his son/grandson being named after him.

By the same token I imagine you could easily see Lionel of Clarence or Alphonso of Chester becoming king and popularising their name. Or one of the post-conquest Edmunds bringing that name back into fashion.
 
Last edited:
By the same token I imagine you could easily see Lionel of Clarence or Alphonso of Chester becoming king and popularising their name. Or one of the post-conquest Edmunds bringing that name back into fashion.
Yes, like name Philip was popularised among French royalty, brought west by Anne of Kiev, or Ferdinand popularised in Germany by Habsburgs.
 
Top