I hope he does; George is a great name. I named my little cat George after King George V, because he looked kind of like a cat with those whiskers of his.
This list has a lot of historically inaccuracies. For one thing, it only lists the kings post-Conquest named Edward, and there were several Anglo-Saxon kings with that name.
No mention of his failed Crusade? His beloved first wife’s death? The premature deaths of most of his children?
First of all, the hot poker story is not contemporary; we don’t know exactly how Edward was killed. As for his sexuality, he was probably at least functionally bisexual, not homosexual. He fathered several children with his queen, plus one illegitimate son. His most devoted relationships do seem to have been with men.
As has been mentioned, he did NOT outlive all his sons. He merely outlived his heir, and was succeeded by a grandson, which was common enough for medieval monarchies.
No mention of the death of his eldest son and heir?
To be fair, he married the American divorcee and seemed happy enough to abdicate.
I would like to address this myth – yes, mostly because John is my favorite Plantagenet king – but there is no truth to the myth that ‘John was such a terrible king that the name was blacklisted forevermore’. There were numerous opportunities for England to get a John II, but due to quirks of fate, it simply didn’t happen. There is no reason to believe that his descendants were carefully avoiding the name.
His grandson Edward I named his eldest son (and heir) John. The boy died young, as did many of Edward I’s children, but Edward couldn’t have known that when he had his son christened John.
Edward II’s second-born legitimate son was John of Eltham.
Edward III’s third surviving son was John of Gaunt. John of Gaunt in turn had several sons named John.
Henry IV’s third son was John of Bedford.
The name wasn’t terribly popular in the Yorkist branch, and by the time the Tudors came to power the names Henry and Edward dominated over others. Likewise, the Hannoverians were entranced with endless Georges. This is all quite natural, as many names gain popularity with the royal families and then fade over the years.
More recently, George V’s youngest son was Prince John. He died young, of an epileptic fit.
Well, there’s still not a John and won’t be in the near future. IOW, the jury (for me) is still out. :dubious:
And he was a terrible king, but that’s another thread… 
Bah! 
He’s not my own favorite and had flaws aplenty, but he probably came within a hair of becoming the dominant monarch in Europe ( Bouvines was one of the 12th centuries most decisive battles in that respect ). All in all he was pretty capable, he was just up against very sharp opposition in Philip Augustus, who had both a superior legal position and greater material resources.
John wasn’t a bad king for the common man, but his nobility hated him with a passion, and for good reason. He was, although capable of being charming, a very unpleasant man.
Heh. That should be 13th century ( 1214 ). I blame that dastardly Richard III ;).
[quote=“scifisam2009, post:18, topic:506501”]
Even the last King George was actually Albert by first name and the name he was always known by.
/QUOTE]
What’s really funny there is that his younger brother, the Duke of Kent’s first name WAS George, and that’s what HE was called! 
Likewise, Edward VIII was known as David, by his family and Friends.
Queen Victoria’s full name was Alexandrina Victoria, and as a child she was known as “Drina.” Edward VII, her son, was Albert Edward, and everyone called him “Bertie”. (She wanted him to reign as Albert Edward I, after his father, but he chose not to)
Argent Towers: the offspring of the heir takes precedence over the younger siblings of the heir. For example, even though Queen Victoria had several uncles, (still living) they were all younger than her father, so she was next in line. (Even being female, she was still higher on the list of succession).
So Edward IV’s grandson outranked his uncles, that’s all.
I also would not consider the Duke of Windsor “friends” with Hitler. He met with him, yes. But they weren’t exactly what I’d call buddies.
His STEP-mother, Ælfthryth, was possibly behind it. Nobody knows who Edward’s mother was. Ælfthryth wanted HER son by Edgar, Ethelred The Unready to be king. In fact, when Edgar died, Ethelred was the legal heir, but for reasons we don’t fully understand, Edward was chosen by the council of bishops to actually succeed.
But then he was assassinated and Æthelred became king anyway.
Also, Edward III’s other son’s bloodlines were very successful. The Yorks, descended from Edmund Of Langley, were very powerful and sat on the throne periodically. John of Gaunt’s children were also powerful and lasting. Henry IV and V were John’s son and grandson, and responsible for some great gains for Medieval England. Furthermore, every single English Monarch since 1485 have descended from John of Gaunt and his third wife, Katherine Swynford. One of their descendants, Henry VII, married one of Edmund Of Langley’s descendants, Elizabeth of York, so both bloodlines are represented to this day. Not so unlucky.
Precious little hope of that unless he is completely non-functional, and even then, he’d still be King while William was Prince Regent.
He can’t just abdicate in favor of his son?
For what it’s worth, I think Charles will make a fine king. I’m asking out of curiosity.