Same Name, Different Family

[LukeofHouseTargaryen]

I understand that if there are two of the same name Kings in one family. For example, Aegon I Targaryen was the first King named Aegon. Aegon II targaryen was the second. But what if Jaime and Cersei's son was named Aegon. He wouldn't, but if he was, would he be Aegon I Lannister of Aegon VI Lannister?

[Ckram]

I think calling him Aegon VI would mean continuing the Targaryen dynasty, whose male line is now extinct. No matter how many Aegons sat on the Iron Throne, what matters is the dynasty they represented.

Therefore, Aegon I Lannister.

[mcchickyn]

I agree with Ckram. I'd say the numbers are only for repeated names within the one dynasty. 

[Orphalesion]

Actually. In the real world Kings and Queens continue to use the numbering even if they are from a different dynasty.

Best example: Queen Elizabeth I (of the House of Tudor) and Queen Elizabeth II (Of the House of Windsor/Sachsen-Coburg). Or look at the various Williams and Edwards of the English throne who simply continued the numbers throughout the various dynasties and cadet branches. Same with the French Kings and the use of the name Louis and the Russians with their Alexanders, Catherines and Peters who all kept the numbering throughout the various dynasties that ruled Russia.

These numberings are tied to the crown, not to the dynasty. Often, when monarchs acquired another crown they even acquired another numbering, like King James IV of Scotland, who later also became King James I of England. 

So, if the naming of the Kings of Westeros follows the same conventions as real world monarchies then, if Joffrey had been named Aegon, he definitely would be Aegon VI/Aegon the Sixth of his name, but only upon his coronation, up until then he'd just be Aegon Baratheon.

We do not have an example of Kings of different dynasties having the same given names in the books right now, so we can only compare it to real life dynasties.

[TMIFairy]

I'm with Orphalesion.

The Baratheon regime is a continuation of the "Seven Kingdoms the Targs built".

Hence going by OTL examples the numbering would be continued.

Had the Rebellion set up a new state, then the numbering would had run anew.

Of course, this is GRRM's world and he could have it run along different lines

 

 

[mcchickyn]

My bad. I misread the question and in my head was following the theory that by the end of the series there'll be no IT or if there is then the borders would be so different.

Anywho, guess we'll find out in about 12 years

[Ckram]

9 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

These numberings are tied to the crown, not to the dynasty.

You're probably right.

9 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

We do not have an example of Kings of different dynasties having the same given names in the books right now, so we can only compare it to real life dynasties.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that what we don't have is kings with the same given name from different dinasties who sat the same chair or held the same titles?

I ask because it seems to me that we do apparently have examples of Kings of different dynasties having the same given names: 

• Theon Stark and Theon III Greyjoy
• Tommen I and II Lannister and Tommen Baratheon
• Erich III and VII Durrandon, Erich I Greyiron* and Erich V Harlaw*
• Joffrey Lynden/Lannister and Joffrey Baratheon

_{*we could count the Ironborn high kings as having the "same titles", but their history do not sound accurate enough to me}

[Orphalesion]

12 hours ago, Ckram said:

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that what we don't have is kings with the same given name from different dinasties who sat the same chair or held the same titles?

Right, I should have clarified two different dynasties that held the same title/crown/chair.

Aside from the Baratheon Revolution and the Iron Born Kings (who are somewhat murky in this regard, as you point out) we don't really have many examples of Westerosi royal dynasties following one another in the books.

It's also kind of odd that the non-royal Great Houses (Stark, Tyrell, Lannister, etc.) don't seem to have any numbering convention since the rise of the Iron Throne. Even if we assume the numbering chain was broken due to them not being kings anymore, it would be a weird coincidence if none of the Great Lords have a name that has not been repeated in the last three centuries. With a few I would find it easier to accept, but with each of them? Not a single Tywin Lannister II or Eddard Stark III... it's kinda odd, considering those houses have held their titles since the Targaryen Invasion. 

[TMIFairy]

The other dynasties - thousands of years old - seem to get by with monikers. Brandon the Bad, Brandon the Burner, Brandon Ice Eyes, Tytos the Laughing Lion  ...

GRRM was not arsed to give them numbers, that's all

By the time of the Conquest the Starks, Lannisters, Durrandons, Gardners probably were in the high double figures with their more popular names ... with (only) two Brandons per century the hypothetical Brandon the Broken could be the one hundred twenty ninth of his name ...

 

[Ckram]

4 hours ago, TMIFairy said:

GRRM was not arsed to give them numbers, that's all

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's the case. I agree people in Westeros (even the noble ones) are more into remembering ancient kings by their monikers, but that happens because numbering kings appears to be dull, a job for the maesters and the bookish.

In fact, Yandel implies that in TWOIAF when he tell us the problem tha maesters face when examining the Durrandon's Durrans. So, it is not wrong to assume that this happens because there was no interest in numbering them by the one who wrote historical accounts.

In addition, there are kings who have both been known by monikers as by their number, even among those mentioned in the list I wrote above:

• Erich VII Durrandon - Erich the Unready
• Erich III Durrandon - Erich the Sailmaker
• Tommen II Lannister - Lion King
• All the Aegons
• Etc