Allow me to prolong the fun with a final remark on the relationship between the names Thakkana and Śakuna, if they are supposed to denote the same person, the Śāhi king of that name, which seems likely.
 
For little is in favour of the assumption that śrīmacchakuna- could be a corruption of śrīmatthakkana-, and indeed, this is almost impossible.
 
What Roland Steiner had earlier written is basically correct, but it is only half the truth:
“In Śāradā, the two akṣaras tha and ṣa are semi-homograph. One could, therefore, speculate whether Thakkana was first misread to Sakkana/Ṣakuna and then improved to Śakuna.”
 
The problematic point here is that the assumed misinterpretation by a scribe could hardly have been caused by mistaking an initial consonant tha for ṣa. Given the exact wording of the beginning of the line “śrīmacchakunadevena” it actually would presuppose a confusion of the conjunct characters -ttha- (of an assumed *śrīmatthakkana-) and -cch- (of śrīmacchakuna- as handed down), to begin with. The sandhi with its effects on the written characters does not seem to have been considered. I cannot see how these conjunct akṣaras could be confused in the Śāradā script in any way. The same applies to the possibility of confusion between ka (kka) and ku, unless we imply a deliberate “improvement”. Here, at the latest, intention would come into play.
Moreover, Roland’s final caution seems to have fallen a little behind:
“But it’s just speculation, not more.” It is.
 
Consider the introductory sentence and the polite way Śakunadeva is referred to as commissioning authority:
śrīmacchakunadevena prerito hṛdaye sphuṭam |
buddhyā kariṣyāmi guroḥ saṃsmṛtya caraṇāmbujam || 2 ||
 
Now Thakkana (*sthagana) clearly belongs to the category of ignominious names, and one may speculate who gave him, or what caused this name. It could be a nickname referring to unflattering personal characteristics, or a given name. Would an author refer to his ruler, who commissioned his work, by a mocking name? I doubt it.
If, on the other hand, it was a given name, which is by far more likely, then we have to take the following background seriously into consideration:
The kind of names we are concerned with here were not very rare, if one thinks of only Ḍomba and Bhikṣācara among Kashmiri kings. Kalhaṇa refers to the latter name expressly as abhavya (“ignominious”) [RT 8.17cd]. Moreover, our Thakkana is not the only bearer of that name. Kalhaṇa records even a courtesan namesake (tellingly called Thakkanā [RT 7.1252]).
Stein explains this name-giving practice on the basis of “superstitious reasons […]. Such names are still common throughout the whole of India, and are usually given to children born after the death of their elder predecessors.” (Stein, note on RT 7.1065).  
Cp. also Stein’s translation of (and notes on) RT 8.16–18:
“Bhoja, Harṣa’s son, had […] a male child. As he was born after two or three other sons had died [in childhood], the Gurus, anxious [to assure him] a long life, had given him the ignominious name of Bhikṣācara (“beggar”).”
 
Note on 8.16-18: “The custom of giving opprobrious names to children born after the death of their elder predecessors, is widely spread throughout India. It takes its origin from the superstition that a disgusting name will save the child from evil influences which otherwise seem to threaten it. […]”.
 
Thakkana, too, belongs to this category of inauspicious or disgusting names.
 
If an author starts his work with a maṅgala śloka (1) and with an homage to his king (2), is it really reasonable to assume he would have used an inauspicious name where auspiciousness and nothing but auspiciousness is called for? Alternatively, should we not rather assume an elegant twist, by which the author makes use of a partial semantic congruency in the lexical field of “concealment”, by replacing the negatively connoted sthagana with a positively connoted śakuna? Note that śakuna in general denotes a good omen, which perfectly fits a maṅgalaic purpose.
 
In my opinion, the assumption that śakuna could owe its existence to scribal corruptions and “betterments” starting from thakkana has become baseless in light of the conjunct consonants -tth- and -cch-.
 
By contrast, a deliberate change from thakkana to śakuna by the author of this verse of homage, who composed a work his ruler bearing an inauspicious name had personally commissioned (preritaḥ) (with the consequence that some remuneration could be expected), is an alternative interpretation I am inclined to follow.
 
Best regards,
WS

* * *