> Ray wrote:
> > But 'George' is one of the Prince of Wales's names! Many people had been
> > hoping he would choose one of his other names, 'Arthur' (which BTW, unlike
> > either Charles or George, is spelled the same in Welsh as in English).
>
> So, if he were to adopt Arthur as his regnal name, would he
> be called "King Arthur II"? For that matter, what status do
> any of the preconquest kings have? A few of the very early
> names are still in use:
>
> <
http://www.hostkingdom.net/engl.html>
>
> I've met people named 'Owen' (the king of which name r. 410-425 AD),
> for example. (Not that a modern monarch is likely to have such a
> name.) Heck, if Sargon II of Assyria (r. 722-705 BC) can be called
> thus because of Sargon I the Great of Akkad (r. 2371-2315 BC), I
> suppose anything can happen.
Hm? I seem recall recently to've read words to the effect that Sargon of Akkad
reached such fame that _two_ Assyrian kings adopted his name. There was no
Sargon III of Assyria, so I've assumed there was a Sargon I of Assyria sometime
between Sargon of Akkad and Sargon II.
I'll be checking my Assyrian regnal list when I get home ...
Andreas