-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Course George I was named as such long before it was likely he would ever be king of England.
A change of dynasty would certainly lead to a change of naming. Interestingly enough there was no Alfred II even within the Saxon period, despite two Edgars, two Edwards and two Ethelreds.
You seem to be forgetting the greatest Saxon name of all: Edmund the Magnificent.
Austen
Austen
Yeah, it's not big enough to do the man's legacy any real justice.
Can't you enlarge it a little?
Austen
Can't you enlarge it a little?
Austen
There will never be a large enough picture of Étienne le Grand to do him the justice he so richly deserves.
I'm not sure which namesake you refer to, but the Good King John of popular history to whom I refer is certainly not associated with loss or failure...
Speak yee of noble John who gave the Barons a good hiding, established Plantagenet supremacy over the mighty Angevin empire (which he expanded and solidified), enforced his iron rule over the bastard bishop of Rome and struck the Oriflamme to the mud at Bouvines?
Do you seek to slander Saint John the Great, victor of Runnymede, conqueror of France, slayer of Philip Augustus and hero of Englishmen throughout History? Know yee not of the cult of John the Magnificent, personal patron saint of Henry V? I know not which vexed books you read, but the John I know and love is perhaps the greatest of all English kings.
Look, here he is, holding the model of Notre Dame de Paris, which he had knocked down, moved and re-built brick by brick on the little island at Runneymede. You must know of it - it's where the torn up remains of the Magna Carta are housed, surrounded by the 16 skulls on spikes of the Great Barons of England who opposed him there.
.jpg)
Austen
Thank you, now my sarcasm-o-meter is broken thanks to you, the level of sarcasm was too much for it.
I'll send you the bill.
Oh him...... yeah, he even managed to lose the crown jewels in the wash.
Though, in all fairness, I don't mean he forgot to check his pockets before doing the laundry. LOL
Three Edwards, two of whom are saints
Yeah, there's certainly naming traditions present within dynasties. Four of the five Hanoverian kings of England were called George (Though only because Prince Frederick predeceased his father), while if you look at the 15th century, you'll notice 3 Lancastrian monarchs, all called Henry, and the three Yorkists comprised 2 Edwards and a Richard. And then when the Lancastrians took over again, in the guise of the Tudors, two more Henrys (and one Edward).
Not so sure about what the naming traditions were in other countries, but it strikes me that with five out of seven, Louis was pretty popular with the Bourbons. But then, Louis was always popular with the French kings anyway. They managed what? 18? Sorry, XVIII
Forgive my ignorance, but is Saint George (Incidentally a Roman soldier from what is now Turkey) also the patron saint of Hanover then?
George is a very old English name (I'm not going to debate the actual roots of the name, but my point is it was certainly popular in Britain before 1714) which was fairly commonplace in medieval England but strangely managed to allude the sons of reigning monarchs until the Hanoverian dynasty. Edward IV did have a brother named George, though - and I suppose it's hardly out of the question that had things played out different he could have become king at some point; (he is known unto History as Clarence, duke thereof).
Austen
So I'm just daydreaming naming system ideas here. There could be five choices based on these criteria.
1) Named after father.
2) Named after prestigious family member on father's side
3) Named after prestigious family member on mother's side
4) Named after a saint or other Christian (or primary religion) figure
5) Completely random new name of primary culture
And I'm thinking the naming system would only be for males. Females would just be given a random name of that person's culture like in CK1.
1) Named after father.
2) Named after prestigious family member on father's side
3) Named after prestigious family member on mother's side
4) Named after a saint or other Christian (or primary religion) figure
5) Completely random new name of primary culture
And I'm thinking the naming system would only be for males. Females would just be given a random name of that person's culture like in CK1.
Wholeheartedly agree on this. It gives a few choices to continue the family names, but offers some random choices to change it up as well. Might suggest tossing in a third random choice as well to even it up some, three names in honor of relatives, three names from a random list.
Yeah, there's certainly naming traditions present within dynasties. Four of the five Hanoverian kings of England were called George (Though only because Prince Frederick predeceased his father), while if you look at the 15th century, you'll notice 3 Lancastrian monarchs, all called Henry, and the three Yorkists comprised 2 Edwards and a Richard. And then when the Lancastrians took over again, in the guise of the Tudors, two more Henrys (and one Edward).
Not so sure about what the naming traditions were in other countries, but it strikes me that with five out of seven, Louis was pretty popular with the Bourbons. But then, Louis was always popular with the French kings anyway. They managed what? 18? Sorry, XVIII
I had suggested in the previous CK thread that names be tied to dynasty's rather than purely to cultures for this very reason. Louis was more popular with the Bourbons than anyone else, as for example the Valois used Louis only twice, the most common name instead being Charles with five Kings of the name.
Additionally, Phillipe was a common name until the the Valois ceased to use it for whatever reason. Louis X was born in 1289 - compare to Louis XI who was born in 1423! As such, Louis is a name that shouldn't be too common until/if the Bourbons come into power.
I had never looked closely at naming patterns by dynasty rather than by country. But as you say, it seems that it would work best that way. Have a look at all the different names a certain dynasty took, and then weight them based on that.
Maybe then we'll stop having Drogo King of England as William's grandson. That's happened to me in almost every game. It always goes William -> Robert Curthose -> Drogo. I don't know why, but my games like to make Robert's first son's name Drogo.
I'm wondering how much work that would take to do that for every single dynasty?
I don't know why, but that sort of thing irritates me quite a bit. I wish they'd have just left the names random like it was pre-DV for this very reason. I often get so sick of seeing such stupid names that I end up editing various names in the savefile. It's depressing. Basically, Robert Curthose (who shouldn't be inheriting this often anyways - I bet the historical Robert Curthose wishes he was CK Robert Curthose
) marries typically one of three women, IIRC. I often see him marry Emma de Bretuil, but they'll always produce a male named William IIRC, which is quite nice!Many of the auto-generated or historically insignificant dynasty's could have sort of a generic name base, I'd guess.