Why did Maekar name Egg, Aegon?

[JLE]

Well.

In England, no king has been called John since the first and only king to bear that name was a resounding failure.

There hasn't been a Charles or a James since the 1600s - James I was high-handed and arrogant, Charles I lost his head, James II lost his crown to his own daughter and her Dutch husband: Charles II restored the Monarchy but brought it into disrepute with his mistresses (tolerated) and his secret Catholicism (in the end, not so tolerated, since it paved the way for his brother James II to become an open convert - which was why there was a rebellion against him.) It has been reported in the past that Prince Charles is considering using the regnal name of George (his fourth forename rather than his first forename: his full name is Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten Windsor), although he is more likely to stick to being Charles III - or possibly even to die before his mother, since both are getting fairly old now. However if Charles outlives Elizabeth, I would hope he has the sense to stick to the name that people know him by.

There hasn't been a Richard since Richard III - although he may have been slandered for some of his villainy and alleged deformity, the death of his child nephews (including the rightful king, Edward V, to whom he was regent) certainly happened on his watch, in a building under his power, and to his gain.

There hasn't been a Henry since Henry VIII - who could make a good model for Robert Baratheon since he started his realm reasonably well with open-handedness and popularity (including being a champion of artists and scholars, and one of the kingdom's foremost musicians) but ended up disastrously with six wives, several mistresses, two annulments (NOT divorces, he was very particular about that distinction), two royal beheadings, at least one attempt to adopt a bastard son (Henry Fitzroy Blount, his son by Elizabeth Blount, at a time when he had no legitimate son of his own - but Fitzroy died in his early 20s before Henry could get enough support for the idea), religious schisms, the Dissolution of the Monasteries, a highly controversial will with the line of succession it gave since it reinstated two daughters whom he had previously disowned as bastards on the grounds that the first came from an annulled marriage and the second from a convicted traitor and adulteress, complicated even further by the fact that the grounds for Katherine of Aragon's annulment were flimsy at best and arguably non-existent, and likewise the evidence against Anne Boleyn's alleged adultery (although the thought currently is that Henry didn't frame her up himself but the evidence was either exaggerated or manufactured by Thomas Cromwell for his own personal gain.)

On the converse side: One of the greatest mythical heroes of English legend, despite there being little proof that he ever existed, is the myth of King Arthur. There have been attempts by a few kings, most recently Henry VII, to name sons Arthur, and all of them have died young - in the latter case, making Henry VIII the heir as a result. Since then it has been informally decided that the name is probably best left to the myth - although as seen above, Arthur is one of Prince Charles's middle names.

The name of George was brought into disrepute in the early 1800s by the madness of George III, and the dissolute and scandalous lifestyle of his son George IV both during the Regency and then during his own reign (and the lifestyle of his wife too, she was as guilty as he was of adulterous affairs): however, with the long reign of Victoria in between, it has subsequently been rehabilitated by the quiet dignity of George V and George VI during the first half of the 1900s.

Of course the name of Edward might well be out of favour after the abdication of Edward VIII: but there have only been two monarchs since him - George VI followed by Elizabeth. Fortunately he left no sons to complicate matters either, and Queen Elizabeth named her third son Edward: which might count as a rehabilitation of sorts for the name, though he is now a long way down the line of succession.

As for queens - If England sees a ruling queen again, Elizabeth would be a highly likely name since now *two* of our greatest monarchs have been queens bearing that name. There might be another Victoria - although the first will have been a hard act to follow, both for the length and success of her reign. There is unlikely to be another Mary, ever since Mary I was a reactionary Catholic tyrant who introduced heretic-burning, and Mary II was a rebel who deposed her own father in favour of her foreign husband William, and then died childless barely a few years later leaving William on the throne. The short reign of Queen Anne was reasonably non-controversial, and of course there is a Princess Anne in the Royal Family right now - though the closest female in the line of succession is Prince William's infant daughter Charlotte, who ranks behind only her grandfather, father and elder brother in order, so if anything happens to young Prince George, Charlotte may be the first ruling queen of that name - though there have been queen-consorts named Charlotte before, there has never been a queen-regnant.

[PrinceHenryris]

As many have pointed out, Maekar might not have chosen Egg's name.

While others have said that Aegon IV might have sullied the name, it's not like Aegons II and III distinguished themselves.

Aegon II was a schmuck who only gets a pass because Aemond was worse (Yes, I would have supported the Blacks).

Aegon III was a broken child who fathered broken sons.  Who knows what would have happened without Viserys II?

Whether it was Daeron II or Maekar who named "Egg" maybe it was just time for another Aegon Targaryen?

Aegon V was a pretty good King.

[1000th Lord Commander]

6 hours ago, JLE said:

Well.

In England, no king has been called John since the first and only king to bear that name was a resounding failure.

There hasn't been a Charles or a James since the 1600s - James I was high-handed and arrogant, Charles I lost his head, James II lost his crown to his own daughter and her Dutch husband: Charles II restored the Monarchy but brought it into disrepute with his mistresses (tolerated) and his secret Catholicism (in the end, not so tolerated, since it paved the way for his brother James II to become an open convert - which was why there was a rebellion against him.) It has been reported in the past that Prince Charles is considering using the regnal name of George (his fourth forename rather than his first forename: his full name is Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten Windsor), although he is more likely to stick to being Charles III - or possibly even to die before his mother, since both are getting fairly old now. However if Charles outlives Elizabeth, I would hope he has the sense to stick to the name that people know him by.

 

I actually have taken it as given that if Charlie succeeds, he'll go by George. But until it happens, neither of us can know.

I commend you for your knowledge of the monarchy. Until I found your post, I was going to write something of the same.