A couple of sources have numbers applied to the descendants of Wrynn III, i.e. Llane Wrynn IV and so on. I haven't been able to find any official source that does this, and it would seem strange to give them numbers when they have different firstnames. The game doesn't seem to use numbers currently, so I've left them off. --Aeleas 13:04, 26 Oct 2005 (EDT)
If Llane Wrynn was the first member of the house with that name, and there haven't been any Llane's since, is there really any need to put the I on the end? Jormungand01 (talk - contr) 16:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Technically speaking, probably not, but it depends on Blizzard's usage and circumstance. -- (talk · contr) 17:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
House Starts After Llane?
I am pretty sure that Wyrnn was simply the first name of three of Llane's ancestors and that it was adopted as a sir name after Azeroth was renamed to Stormwind. --The last Alterac (talk) 07:10, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, given that we know it was the surname of at least two of his immediate ancestors, no. You're wrong. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 07:11, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
But in according to the Chronicles of The War In Azeroth: "All has been peaceful for many generations, and the reign of King Wrynn III is a prosperous one" and "the tenth year of his reign, King Llane is visited by the mysterious traveler.". Those two statements imply that Wrynn III is referred to by his first name in the same way that Llane was referred. Not once in that scourse is Llane referred as that Wrynn is his sir name.
In another way for me to explain: The English royal family is filled with names followed by numbers. James VI, James IV, Henry VII, Henry III, Elizabeth II etc. Those are their given names and they received their names because their parents were unoriginal/conservative. Do you honestly believe that Elizabeth II got that name because her father's last name was Elizabeth? You're wrong --The last Alterac (talk) 08:07, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Elizabeth? No. But here's the thing: the Stormwind royal family is not the English royal family. They do not have to follow the same rules as they do. And, as I said, and as you would know if you bothered to read the page, the father of King Adamant Wrynn III was King Landen Wrynn. Therefore we can easily conclude, based on something called evidence which you seem to enjoy ignoring, that the "III" part is because there were two prior Wrynns with the first name of Adamant and not because they randomly decided to change their last name to their forebears' first name. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 08:57, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
Either that or a retcon. My last counter argument is that if what you say is true; then why isn't he known as Adamant III, instead of Adamant Wyrnn III? I am just saying that Wyrnn might of been retconned into his last name, by the writers giving him a first. If you answer my above question, then I shall accept defeat.--The last Alterac (talk) 04:58, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
- First of all, the original Warcraft manual account has been retconned countless times- it is, sadly, no longer viable. The king formerly known as Wrynn III is now Adamant Wrynn III.
- As to your more recent question, the house name doesn't matter in the real world, but Blizzard seems to be using their own rule, by which rulers are known by <given name> <last name> <number> (Adamant Wrynn III, Terenas Menethil II) instead of the <throne name> <number> (Elizabeth II) used in the real world. -- (talk · contr)