Some names are cursed to the Royals. Princess Diana wanted to name her first son “Oliver.” The Queen squelched that notion quickly. Something about a reviled Lord Protector…
And said Prince John was a sickly epileptic who died when he was only 13.
Oh THAT prick. 
But I thought that she too wanted to name William “John”, after her father.
Almost certainly false. John ( like Richard before him ) made use of Muslim mercenaries and it was a nice propaganda tool to use aginst him.
Yeah, but then you went and backed John over your grandson, poor little Arthur, despite the seniority of his line, practically forcing him to put you under siege at Mirebeau. Kindly grandmother my foot :p.
Hard to say - Richard’s case vis-a-vis his…tastes in such things is very ambiguous. But you’re right that John at least liked the ladies ;).
But it was actually a very clever maneouver. He had to have been carefully shadowing Arthur to have moved as quickly as he did and he caught him and his Poitevin allies completely offguard inside the outerworks of the castle, where they were preparing to siege the inner keep where Eleanor was still holding out. They were pretty much captured while eating breakfast.
Then he threw that huge advantage away by murdering, or causing to be murdered, or at least allowing the rumor to spread that he had murdered Arthur. Major, major propaganda coup for Philip Augustus.
Oh, c’mon. At least get the species right!: http://www.cedmagic.com/featured/robin-hood/03-claude-rains.jpg
One factor might be Shakespeare’s thoroughly unsympathetic portrait in King John, itself one of the dramatist’s weaker works - tedious to read and interminable to watch. The Bastard is the real hero of the play. Although it does contain some good passages in his final speech:-
This England never did, nor never shall,
Lie at the proud foot of a conqueror,
But when it first did help to wound itself.
Now these her princes are come home again,
Come the three corners of the world in arms,
And we shall shock them. Nought shall make us rue,
If England to itself do rest but true
**BlinkingDuck ** was quoting a line from the Mel Brooks movie Robin Hood: Men in Tights. I don’t know who APB is talking about.
APB was, i think, making a sardonic comment about England/Britain/the U.K.'s economic/political state … “all the toilets and England will be called…Johns.” As in, “the country’s going down the sewer pipes.”
Well, John only sucked his thumb. Richard was into…other things.
No, I was simply making the point that, if any future prince were to be named John, most of the speculation would be that he had been named in honour of the son of George V, not King John. Thanks to Stephen Poliakoff, the ‘lost prince’ is now actually far better known in the UK than most other Royals of that period. The idea that that this was somehow righting a wrong etc. etc. would therefore be too obvious not to get lots of media coverage. Even if that was not the reason for the choice of name.
Royal forenames that should be brought back:
Stephen (so far there’s only been ONE Stephen and that was a hell of a long time ago)
Richard (yeah, I know, Richard III…so fucking what?)
Henry (because it would be awesome to finally have a 9th king of the same name)
Kings named Edward, with a few exceptions (Edward I, III and VII) seem to have been “cursed”, from Edward II who was killed by having a hot iron rod rammed up his ass, to Edward IV who died early, obese and drunk and whose death sent the monarchy into upheaval, to Edward V who was killed in the tower as a boy, to Edward VI who died a horrifically painful death as a teenager which ended all hopes of a Tudor dynasty, to Edward VIII who tried to marry an American socialite and was exiled in disgrace. So that one should probably be retired.
Bit racy for under-13s, no?
Genuinely curious - why? I am British, was taught history at school, but there’s a lot of Kings and Queens and I don’t remember which one did what. Nor do I care.
From watching Disney’s Robin Hood?
They’ve pretty much ceased teaching history here now. It’s not a ‘core subject’.
Arthur
You almost had another one when Henry VII named his son this, but he died at 15, so Henry VIII got to be king. It’d be an interesting Alternative History to see what would’ve happened if he’d lived. That whole “getting an annulment through the Pope” thing wouldn’t have come up.
It’s about time you had another King Arthur.
…and the only line in the whole movie I laughed at 
In regards to Edward II, the hot iron up the ass seems to be a legend. Some historians think Edward actually survived for years after his supposed death. One of his (probable) lovers was killed in a really gruesome manner, though, and I think his reign still qualifies as “cursed”.
It was a bit tongue-in-cheek. 
However, more seriously, history is the story of how we got here, and I do think it’s important to know a good bit about it. I really am kind of taken aback by the claim made in this thread that most Britons wouldn’t know the first thing about King John or Richard I, or the difference between the legends and reality if they did. I make my kids study a lot of history and it’s one of our favorite subjects. Not to mention, it has tons of fodder for critical thinking and discussion.