Why is there only one "King John" in English history?
Madmaarten
03-08-2004, 03:27
I know why, do you?
because they named their toilets john after him?
Opal Isle
03-08-2004, 03:27
I know why, do you?
John apparantly isn't a catchy enough name.
Vasily Chuikov
03-08-2004, 03:29
Perhaps because he was so utterly incompetant as to make in an insult to name a future king after him?
Zeppistan
03-08-2004, 03:34
Who else would want to be named after the guy who tried to overthrow his brother Richard when he was away on Crusade (yes - the prince John of Robin Hood fame), lost Normandy early in his ruleand was forced to sign the Magna Carta at the end of his rule....
I think it's because his name was John. Simple as that.
I assume the "one" King John you are refering to is John Lackland, the king who was forced to sign the Magna Carta, and that's the reason no other English Kings have chosen to assume the name John. But of course he's not the only King John in English history, after all John Baliol came soon after John Lackland and certainly is part of English history even if he was a Scottish king.
Of course you could be concentrating on the fact that if there were a King John II (not another King John I) it would be legitimizing the Pope's claim that England is Papal fief. Nah, you would instead ask why there has been/ will be no King John II in that case.
Bodies Without Organs
03-08-2004, 11:33
I know why, do you?
As Yeatman & Sellars have it in 1066 & All That, he was a 'bad king'. Thus there has been little desire to name an heir to the throne in his honour.
It was because of the Magna Carta.
Hmmm, see, if he'd been called " Jonathan " he would have done better ...
* Looks at poor spelling on my fire safety training sertification ...
" Tonjafon " ... hmmm. Maybe not.
* Still he would have gotten out of that Magna Carte business ... ;)
Or, he could have had a ye olde sex change and called himself Elizabeth the 1st, would have done much better.