Talk:List of monarchs in the British Isles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Former featured article candidate This article is a former featured list candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated NA-Class on the assessment scale.

Archived talk:

Contents

[edit] INTERREGNUM

The most reliable source for authentic British Monarchical history is the Official Site. This site does not consider the Cromwell's as monarchs. They were never given this title. Though they played roles very similar, they were not monarchs - this has a very specific meaning in british history, and requires specific rituals, coronation rites, titles, estates, etc. For this reason, I have removed them from the list of monarchs; for again, they were NOT monarchs, and I suggest they be removed from all the lists -- just as they are on the Official Site. It is appropriate, however, to simply mention the Interregnum, putting the Cromwells briefly in the mention. Again, though they ruled England, they were NOT monarchs, not Kings, not Princes, and thus are not to be listed as such. Thank you for your consideration for historical accuracy.

[edit] Just do it

I think someone at wiki should just merge the pages so we can stop discussing it.

[edit] UK or not UK

Its that old 'UK' or 'not UK' problem again. All my research and fellow academics with whom I consulted agreed that the term 'united kingdom' in the 1707 Act was not intended as a name but as a description. The name was clearly and umabiguously the 'Kingdom of Great Britain', which was a united kingdom, not the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom only came in with the Irish Act of Union of 1801, which brought Ireland and GB together to form the UK. After checking with various sources and academics on the issue, I changed the titles so that monarchs from 1707-1800 are described as GB, and ones (including George III, who occured in both periods) from 1801 are described as UK. I adapted the links accordingly. It is more accurate and also clearly marks the divisions between the various states and monarchical titles that weren't clear before, when the description uk was treated as United Kingdom state, when it wasn't.

PS - otherwise, a superb set of pages and entries. JTD 06:03 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

Derek, I've double-check with 8 historians, including 2 professors of history, and reference books that deal specificially with title, as well as with sources in the Royal Household. The words 'united kingdom' in the 1707 Act were intended are are regarded as descriptive, not as authorising the use of that name for the kingdom formed by that Act. For yet more evidence. see page 1198 (index) of Norman Davies, The Isles (Macmillan 1999). While the author there admits a number of errors in title cropped up where others did the cross-referencing in the index, his explicit references to the titles of Anne and the four Georges is clear. If Wikipedia can't get its basic references to royal titles correct, it will damage its own reputation as a source book. JTD 19:33 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

Fine JTD. I'll check the reference out but it was published in 1999 not in 1707 or thereabouts, so it's not what I'd call a source. It's an author's interpretation of the sources (otherwise known as a history book). I'd expect it to contain reasoned argument and reference to source documents, so of course it may well contain the convincing argument that I'm looking for. Thanks -- Derek Ross 19:44 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)
PS. I wouldn't say that Wikipedia is a source (unless you need a source for the History of Wikipedia), just a reference 'book'.

Derek, believe me I'm hooked on sources, not history books (though I am in the process of writing one, relying on sources, which will contradict many Irish history books). His book references are just an example. What I meant in describing Wiki as a source is in the non-professional historian's understanding of a sourcebook, simply as a place to get a basic understanding and basic facts. But we also have to use most common used accurate terms, and GB is the most common used name for the kingdom between 1707 and 1801, when the UK became the unambiguous name of the state. 'England', though the most widely used term, is as I'm sure you'll agree, completely inaccurate and therefore absolutely wrong. JTD 20:39 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

[edit] Charles II

I've changed the date of Charles II becoming king of England, based on the date of his coronation. However I'm aware that it could also be based on the date of his being proclaimed king (and possibly was). Coronation seems better to me, as a crowned king is indisputably king, but I think it should be discussed. -- Derek Ross

A monarch becomes monarch the moment his/her predecessor dies or abdicates. A coronation is a popular affirmation of a status already attained. It also amounts to a sacred anointing. Edward VIII for example was not crowned, yet he became king the moment his father George V died. Popes too were crowned up until John Paul I. Neither he nor John Paul II were crowned with the Papal Tiara yet were pope. It is different to, say, the inauguration of the President of the United States or the President of Ireland, where the inauguration ceremony is the entry point. In theory, King Charles III could dispense with the coronation when he becomes king; Britain is the only major monarchy in the world still to have a coronation. William IV did want to abandon the ceremony altogether, but didn't get his way. JtdIrL 09:34 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, JTD. If monarchs weren't monarchs until they were crowned, we would have many periods of a year or more in British history when there was no monarch! Deb 15:22 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)
That's just the point, Deb. There are periods of a year or more in British history when there was no monarch, according to our list. The two most notable periods being after the death of Margaret in 1290 and of Charles in 1649, there are gaps. Going by what JTD says above Charles II became king of both nations in 1649, not in 1651 or in 1660 as we currently say, but the situation seems rather more complicated after Margaret's death, since there were several rival claimants. What do we do there ? -- Derek Ross 21:47 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, yes, there are those gaps, but they are unique. What I meant was that, if you only accepted that a monarch was officially a monarch after they had been crowned (which seemed to be what you were saying), then there would be a gap almost every time the crown changes hands. Charles II was formally restored to the throne on May 29, 1660, and that's normally accepted as the beginning of his reign. I don't go for the 1649 date, although you could argue that he was king of Scotland because they accepted him and crowned him long before England did. I don't think JTD is 100% correct, because the succession has to have the authority of parliament in order to be valid. Deb 21:58 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)


The reason for the gaps is that there were several claimants and nobody was sure who to regard as the monarch. Technically, there shouldn't be, as whomever turned out to be the vaid monarch became so the moment the previous monarch died or abdicated. The gaps simply are historians' way of stressing that no-one for a particular period of time was sure who was the real monarch. But as to the issue of is succession automatic, the answer is 100% yes. A monarch succeeds immediately. They are confirmed by an Accession Council (special meeting of the Privy Council) at which such issues as their nomenclature is announced. A year later, they go through the symbolic ritual of coronation, which amounts to their annointment by God (or one of his clergymen, on his behalf). But Charles will become king the moment Elizabeth II dies. Elizabeth became queen hours before she or anyone else knew it, the moment George VI died. That's where the phrase 'the King is dead. Long Live the King' comes from. That is why, also there was such a bruhaha over the flying of the Royal Standard over Buckingham Palace at full mast (or as the Yanks would say, staff) after Diana's death. The standard is never flown at half mast because there always is a monarch. So it flew on the last day of George VI's life honouring him, the next day at full mast honouring Queen Elizabeth II (just not where he died, as there was no longer a monarch there. Instead it was (or if they had one with them, would have been flown, over the treetops hotel that Elizabeth was in on the morning she discovered her father had died.) Technically Charles II became King Charles II the moment King Charles I was executed. But he didn't have a kingdom he could legally rule over until 1660 with the restoration. So 1660 doesn't mark the start of his reign, merely his restoration to the throne, having been monarch in exile for 11 years.

Actually, Deb, the sucession is automatic, though parliament as it did in the Glorious Revolution can retrospectively change it, when it offered the throne to William and Mary and not James VII/II's young son. But it doesn't go before parliament or require parliamentary approval. Parliament can intervene but except in extraordinary circumstances doesn't. The standard routine is that parliament is simply 'informed' that a new accession has taken place. JtdIrL 22:07 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

I think what you say is true now, but may not have been true before the Act of Succession existed. Take Elizabeth I of England. Deb 22:10 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Yes and no. Parliament's power ebbed and flowed over the years. Sometimes monarchs sidelined and ignored it and it dared not intervene. Other times, weakened monarchs and confusion over sucession increased parliament's role vis-a-vis the monarchy. JtdIrL 22:33 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

It's not a question that can have a simple yes or no answer, at least not at the period we're talking about. Before the Act of Succession, the monarch had the power to name an heir, but whether that heir came to the throne tended to depend on whether he or she got in ahead of the other claimants. In Charles's case, I'm not sure he would have been so rash as to date his reign from 1649 when his restoration depended on the will of Parliament which had invited him back. Deb 17:45 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

The concept of a 'parliamentary monarchy' as such did not exist then. The belief in the divine right of kings saw the 'making' of a king as an 'act of God', not an act of parliament. That's why for example, while people focus on the 'crowning' part of the coronation ceremony, the real significant bit is the 'annointing' which indicates a monarch's role as the equivalent of Holy Orders; that's one reason why there is no question of Elizabeth II abdicating, contrary to misinformed media speculation. She sees herself as a god-created monarch, annointed as such, it being God's decision, not hers, as to when she vacates the throne. Parliament was involved on occasion, but the monarch was still monarch 'by the grace of God', not 'on the authority of parliament'. The reason why Britain's monarchy has survived, whereas others haven't, is that Britain's monarchs and constitutional structures were sufficiently flexible to cope with situations, whereas other constitutions and royal families were excessively rigid. The general theory is that Charles de jure became king in 1649, but became de facto monarch in 1660. Or to put it another way, he inherited a throneless crown in 1649, and the throne in 1660 after it had been reestablished. But Charles was called king by his supporters from 1649, in the same way as french royalists regarded Louis XVI's dauphin as Louix XVII following his father's death. (Or indeed as French royalists regarded the duc de Bordeaux (later Comte de Chambord) as 'Henry V' from 1840 until his death in the 1880s, even though he never sat on the French throne, indeed was stupid enough to turn it down in the early 1870s because he would not accept the tricolour - but then he was so stupid he reportedly couldn't tie his own laces!!!) But in no sense constitutionally was the English/British crown inherited 'subject to parliamentary approval'. But on occasion, in an outbreak of realpolitik parliament could intervene. But constitutionally, the concept of parliamentary monarchy really only emerged when parliament offered the throne to William and Mary, and then on the basis that James VII/II had supposedly abdicate, they changing the Order of Succession to perpetuate a protestant monarchy by excluding the Catholic first in line, the Duke of Cornwall, James' baby son and passing the throne on jointly to the second-in-line and her husband. JtdIrL 19:06 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC) JtdIrL 19:08 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

The 1660 proclamation of Parliament is pretty clear (as are various other Acts/Documents at the time) "Although it can no way be doubted but that his Majesty's right and title to his crowns and kingdoms is and was every way completed by the death of his royal father of glorious memory"Alci12 13:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of monarchs of England=

... still exists and mainly overlaps this page. This article seems to be getting somewhat long and difficult to read. Should a list also be transferred to List of monarchs of Scotland and the lists on this page for England and Scotland before 1604 be simply replaced with a link, as is now done for Wales? --Jiang 05:42 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think the the England and Scotland lists should each go up to the Union in 1707, but otherwise I don't have a problem with that. john 08:02 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. Deb 11:36 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] English ordinal?=

I don't see how that latest addition to the article can be correct. It seems to me that the English ordinal is used in all cases, and the results are not the same - for example, there was no Elizabeth I of Scotland. But in any case, it's not at all clear what is meant by the statement. Deb 12:02, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] French format

We can make the article easier to read if we adopt the fomat used on the [French page]. Lord Emsworth 00:35, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Good suggestion. The ability to see the parallel Enlgish and Scottish monarchs is good. RickK 00:42, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I like that layout too. -- Derek Ross 02:32, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
See the page User:Lord Emsworth/British monarchs
That looks superb. One point is that while it ceased to be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in the 1920s, it wasn't until 1949 that the King ceased to be King of Great Britain and Ireland, and the actual change in titulary wasn't fully implemented until the Queen's coronation in 1953. john 03:26, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Illegitimacy of Edward VI

Would it be overkill to add in the list of people who would have been Monarch had Edward VI's illegitimacy been taken seriously? (i.e. the line through Henry X and Barbara I?) -- Darac 10:55, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it would be overkill. We don't even include the Jacobite succession on this page -- although it is listed elsewhere. The succession you mention would have an enormous effect, since the thrones of England and Scotland would no longer have been united at the time they were. Another point against adding it, is that these alternate lines of succession are highly speculative since who is to say that later generations of the alternate line would have married as they did given that they were monarchs rather than subjects. -- Derek Ross

And, um, can we also note that the only monarchs invalidated by Edward IV's supposed illegitimacy are Edward IV himself and his son. Henry VII's claim to the throne was not based upon his marriage to Elizabeth of York (he was already king for several months before he married her), and so the claims of his descendants aren't affected by this silly argument. Plus, as I understand it, the argument is based on the fact that the Duke of York was not where his wife was exactly 9 months before Edward IV's birth. He was in the same town as her both a few weeks before this and a few weeks after. Given that babies are rarely born exactly 9 months after conception, this is pretty stupid. Furthermore, paternity in this case is not a biological, but a legal question, and Edward IV was legally the son of Richard, Duke of York, whoever his biological father may have been. In any event, the purpose of this page is to list de facto monarchs, not tenuous alternative claims. Otherwise it should list the heirs of Ethelred the Unready (currently Princess Alicia of Bourbon-Parma), the heirs of Mary Tudor, Henry VIII's younger sister, who ought have inherited in 1603 (I believe Lady Kinloss is the current claimant on this, but am uncertain), the Jacobite line (currently represented by Duke Franz of Bavaria), and so on and so forth. john 19:05, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edgar Ætheling

Should Edgar Ætheling be included in the list? He's hardly ever included normally. Infact I don't think I've ever seen him included. What about Lady Jane Grey? Should she be on the list? If we include them, then what about James III of England are there other candidates ?

I don't think Edgar Aetheling, Jane Grey, or the Old Pretender should be included, just as Napoleon II, Louis XIX, and Henri V are not normally included in lists of French monarchs. The "official" post facto record does not count these people as having been reigning monarchs. The closest is Jane Grey, who is sometimes listed, but is more usually an asterix. Jane never actually asserted control over most of England, was never crowned, and was not legally the heir under the will of Henry VIII, which had statutory authority (unlike that of his son, which was thus illegal). john k 01:37, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm suprised his inclusion in the list has remained undiscussed for such a long time. Mintguy (T) 01:40, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd suggest footnotes for both the Aetheling and Jane Grey be referred to in footnotes rather than the main tables. john k 02:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. Some conensus needed though, seeing as it's been this way for such a long time. BTW the archive of this page seems to have gone missing, red link above. Mintguy (T)
I've re-created the archive from the history; hope it's correct.
James F. (talk) 14:43, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
BTW if we change this is has to be changed on List of monarchs of England too. Mintguy (T) 15:22, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Jane Grey

Her recent removal from the list looks rather curious to me. Her own article discusses the particulars of her nine-days reign and her deposition. Thus establishing that Edward VI of England did not have a peaceful succession. The article on Mary I of England concludes that her de facto reign started on July 19, 1553.

The discussion page of her article concludes that the direct succession of Edward VI by Mary I was a historical "retcon" by the Succession Council. Which also determined that Charles I of England was succeeded by Charles II of England at the time of death.

Lady Jane Grey, her reign and relation to the Tudors are detailed in the Tudor dynasty article.

She is listed in the articles: King of Ireland, English "Kings of France" and until yesterday List of monarchs of England.

Yet User:Astrotrain and User:John Kenney have not added a single comment on the discussion page on why the most significant British power struggle between the Battle of Bosworth Field and the English Civil War should not even be mentioned.

John Kenney himself suggested in the previous year for Lady Jane Grey "to be referred to in footnotes rather than the main tables". Yet not a single footnote has been added to any of the relative articles. Explanations?

Up till now this looks like a damnatio memoriae to me, which is why I reverted the relevant articles during the previous day. User:Dimadick

It's true that a lot of reference books nowadays do recognise Jane Grey as a monarch. I think there's certainly a case for including her. Deb 11:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have put her in new notes section. Lets hope she stays there! I, TAS, did that before I became a user!
She should not be in the main list, because she was only proclaimed Queen, and never actually ruled as Queen. It is fine to mention in her a footnote tho. In any case, she is not a member of the House of Tudor, because her descent is from the female line of Henry VII. Astrotrain 17:15, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
I'm perfectly happy with a footnote, I was just too lazy to think how to format it. For which I will take whatever lumps are necessary. At any rate, Jane Grey was never really a de facto monarch, and she is not considered to have been de jure monarch either. At any rate, as I noted before, her case is a lot more like that of Napoleon II, Louis XIX, and Henri V in France than it is like an actual reigning monarch. None of these are recognized as actually having been monarchs. I'm perfectly happy with a footnote, but I don't think she should be in the main list. john k 17:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you include Jane then for consistancy you have to include a number of other people who were proclaimed but forgotten by history. For instance the French Dauphin was proclaimed during the early 'reign' of Henry III and ruled a large part of the south of England for a time. Certainly he was de facto king in ways Jane never was.Alci12 13:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox?

I would suggest creating an infobox for British monarchs. I've made a draft (it needs some improvement) on Edward II.

Any feedback?

Eixo 02:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is "deposed" strictly accurate? Burial place might be a nice additional box. john k 06:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As the article says: "on January 20 Edward was forced to renounce his office before a committee of the estates", so he was definitely deposed. The thing is that only few monarchs are, so maybe a parenthesis would work better than a seperate box.

Should it be birth/death or born/died?

Eixo 06:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is too much information in the box I think. Astrotrain 10:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
I've tidied it a little, and switched it to the standard formatting.
Birth/death, not born/died (events, not activities, if you see what I mean).
Also, I'd recommend making it up into a template so as to maintain a consistent look.
Thoughts?
James F. (talk) 11:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Too much info: I've tried to keep it to a minimum, that's why I suggest cutting out siblings, even though it's highly relevant to the question of succession, for instance. Maybe coronation and burial could go too?
We can make it into a template, but we should first agree on the format, and I think that's easier with a concrete example. It's a big project this, since it will affect about fifty rulers only since the Conquest. We need to get it right. Eixo 18:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Being forced to renounce your office" sounds to me more like an abdication than a deposition. A king is deposed (explicitly) by someone else. For instance, a revolutionary government can proclaim the deposition of a king, or whatever. If the king gives up his office of his own will, he is abdicating, even if the abdication is forced. john k 14:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, I still say he was deposed. You can't really be forced to give up your office of your own will, can you? That's an oxymoron. If an abdication is forced it can't be legally binding, so Edward was deposed both de facto and de jure. Also, the standard works I've consulted (Handbook of British Chronology, Oxford History of England's The Fourteenth Century) all refer to the event as a deposition. Eixo 18:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Edward II
Image: Edward2.JPG
Reign July 7, 1307 - January 20, 1327
Coronation February 25, 1308, Westminster
Queen Isabella of France (c.1295-1358)
Royal House Plantagenet
Father Edward I (1239-1307)
Mother Eleanor of Castile (1246-1290)
Issue Edward III (1312-1377)
John of Eltham, Earl of Cornwall
(1316-1336)
Eleanor of Woodstock (1318-1355)
Jeanne of the Tower (1321-1362)
Date of Birth April 25, 1284
Place of Birth Caernarfon Castle
Date of Death September 21, 1327
Place of Death Berkeley Castle
Place of Burial Gloucester Cathedral

Okay, fair enough, although the Handbook of British Chronology has a fairly large number of errors. Was Richard II also deposed, then? john k 19:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would say so, even though the Handbook elegantly avoids the issue by using the phrase 'Ceased to reign'. In my book there is only one English/British monarch for whom the term "abdication" is applicable, and that's Edward VIII. Eixo 07:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I would remove the relations part of the box. It is too much information, and all the information will be readily in the article. Astrotrain 13:45, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, all the information should be redily available in the article. The point of the infobox is to give useful information at a glance. My criterion for inclusion is to ask: what could a user coming to the page for quick information be looking for, that the infobox cuold give him in about five seconds? I think family relations would be high on that list, but I'm willing to hear what others might think.


Ok, here's the deal: I had been loooking around a bit and was pretty confident there was no infobox for monarchs. It turns out there was one in use anyway, for Sweden (check it out here). It's not so different from what I had envisaged, so for the sake of conformity I'm willing to go with this one (all that work to no avail, I guess).

There's a couple of changes I'd make though: 'Royal motto' - medieval English kings didn't really have those, did they (what would that be, 'Edward II - 15 years of not having a red hot poker inserted up my anus, and counting!')? Also 'Predecessor/Successor': this is redundant, since there's a separate infobox for this at the bottom anyway. Instead I've inserted parents and issue (maybe include just the most important of the children, how about 'Main Issue'?) This can be relevant and interesting, and isn't always identical with predecessor/successor. Someone might come to the page trying to find out who was Henry IV's, or Queen Victoria's father, or who was Henry VI's son, or who were the children of Henry VIII.

I'll soon move this over to wider discussion pages, such as Wikipedia:Infobox and create a project page, something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Monarchs. Eixo 09:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harthacanute

I was just looking at Harthacanute, and the introduction says "was a King of Denmark (1035–1042) and England (1035–1037, 1040–1042)." Further on, the article intimates that Harold Harefoot was regent from 1035–1037 but didn't actually claim the throne until 1037. The list of monarchs shows Harold as King from 1035–1040, at which point Harthacanute reclaimed the throne. I would like to know what is the correct statement. Should the list be changed to include this brief kingdom of Harthacanute from 1035–1037 as well as 1040–1042? --timc | Talk 02:02, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that Harold Harefoot became regent, theoretically for his half-brother, but that Harthacanute was not able to make good his claim until after Harold's death. So he isn't normally recognized as being king for that earlier period. john k 07:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How far back?

I've always invited headaches trying to figure out who the first King of England was. Certainly William I counts, so I have to start from there. According to a book I have right now, "[Edgar 944-75] was the first Saxon ruler to be recognized as the king of all England." But I thought Aethelstan from the 930s was the first; the article seems to state this. But the list of Kings of England at the bottom of the articles starts with Alfred the Great, and the one on this page starts with Offa. Does anyone know when all those kingdoms disappeared? (This could also help with a report...) Brutannica 03:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll find the answer if you investigate hard enough (through the links, eg. to Wessex). Deb 07:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
The Kingdoms of Kent, Sussex, and Essex were taken over by Wessex by the early 9th century, I believe. East Anglia was conquered by the Vikings about the same time, as were much of Northumbria and Mercia. The remaining parts of Mercia and Northumbria remained semi-independent, I think, until the early 10th century. I'm not sure at what point the Danelaw was gotten fully under control, but around the same time. At some point between Athelstan and Edgar England was fully united, but I think it's rather unclear to name a precise date. But I'm not certain. My understanding is that Athelstan was already effectively ruler of all England, but that Edgar was the first to actually be "King of England." Not completely sure, though. john k 07:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
So why does this list begin with Offa? Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doubtful monarchs and Interregnum

This list appears to have adopted a "radical inclusionist" approach to the question of who to include in the list of monarchs. It includes Sweyn Forkbeard, Matilda, Edward Baliol, Lulach, who I have not always seen included. Fair enough, perhaps, but why not Lady Jane Grey, who often is included, or Edgar Atheling (who was briefly proclaimed king in London after Harold was killed in Hastings) or the Old Pretender (who was crowned King of Scots in Scone, and who was proclaimed king of an independent Scotland by his son in Edinburgh)? Strictly speaking, Jane's claim was asserted by her relatives not herself, but you could say the same about Edward V. She was never crowned, but so were Edward V and Edward VIII.

I don't think its accurate to say there was just anarchy after Richard Cromwell abdicated. The 20 months or so between the death of Oliver Cromwell and the return of Charles II is often glossed over as if this was an automatic process. It was a complicated period with e.g. the return and 2nd dissolution of the Rump Parliament, but Generals Lambert and Monck were de facto rulers for a lot of that period, should they be included? PatGallacher 09:58, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

OK, I realise some of these issues have been gone over before. However what distinguishes Jane, Edgar, and the Old Pretender (and some drastic inclusions like Sweyn, Matilda, Edward Baliol) from nominal monarchs like Napoleon II and Louis XVII is that they were the de facto ruler of significant areas, including London or Edinburgh, albeit for a very short period, or at least administrations ruling in their name were the de facto rulers. Should we add a list of "doubtful monarchs" or the like at the end? PatGallacher 10:27, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, would your comments also cover kings before Offa? Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:31, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comments. Lady Jane Grey is already included - see the England column, Tudor dynasty, 1553.
Is there much doubt that (at least in retrospect) William I was king by conquest after the Battle of Hastings? On the other hand, since we have Lady Jane Grey's 9 days, I have no problem in adding Edgar Atheling's 8 weeks before he submitted to William.
Good point on the post-Cromwell period: I think the Generals should be included (although it would not really be right to call them "monarchs"). Is there an article on this period?
On pretenders, we don't include the Young Pretender or the Duke of Monmouth either - why is the Old Pretender any different? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
The Young Pretender is excluded because, although he was de facto ruler of a significant area for about a year, he claimed to be acting as regent on behalf of his father, not monarch himself. Clearly, you could start digging up a lot of pretenders who had de facto control of a very small area for a very short time e.g. Perkin Warbeck. I think this list is actually nudging towards this approach anyway, but I propose we include all persons who meet either of these 2 criteria: either a) they were crowned in a recognised place of coronation or b) they, or an administration acting in their name, controlled the capital for any time, however brief. PatGallacher 11:17, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

May I suggest that rulers frequently excluded be listed, but that their be some kind of note as to their dubious status? john k 05:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

That's a very sensible suggestion, John. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:48, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be better to have a seperate section for the disputed 'monarchs' as so many are not counted by most sources. It will also stop advocates of fringe candidates making the list messy and confusing.Alci12 10:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Title

It has been suggested on WP:FLC that this should be retitled List of monarchs of England and Scotland. Does anyone have any views? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The current title is more accurate than the proposed one in that the monarchs of Scotland and those of England can both be described as British monarchs whereas the monarchs of the United Kingdom cannot so easily be described as English monarchs or as Scottish monarchs. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:00, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I interpret a "monarch of the United Kingdom" to be a "monarch of England and a monarch of Scotland and a monarch of Wales and a monarch of (whichever bit of Ireland applies)". If the name is to remain unchanged then, to my mind, the list should include monarchs of Wales and Ireland. --Theo (Talk) 12:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
The current article, List of British Monarchs should definitely include Monarchs of Wales. However Ireland is not Britain so I don't see why the article should include Monarchs of Ireland. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:14, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Valid point by Derek. I was slack. --Theo (Talk) 00:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Further comments on WP:FLC supported the move to List of monarchs of England and Scotland so I have done it. Feel free to object (but you will have over dozen double redirects to fix again if you move it back!). -- ALoan (Talk) 18:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well having done so I hope that you will also edit the article so that it only includes individuals who were monarchs of England and Scotland. At the moment the title is rather misleading since the article also includes individuals who were monarchs of only one of the two kingdoms. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:54, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
The "and" is conjunctive and disjunctive - the list includes Monarchs of England, and Monarchs of Scotland, and Monarchs of England and Scotland (or their successor kingdoms). -- ALoan (Talk) 18:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's not at all clear. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:49, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

The current title is completely inappropriate - a "List of monarchs of England and Scotland" implies a list of rulers before the union, only. That is not what this list is. It is a list of monarchs of Great Britain and of the UK, and of the two kingdoms which joined together to form Great Britain, which are England and Scotland. List of British monarchs seems appropriate, so long as we have links towards the top of where lists of Welsh, Anglo-Saxon, Pictish, and so forth, monarchs can be found. john k 15:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised that I missed this discussion before, and the earlier discussion. That said, what is a "Monarch of Wales?" Unlike Scotland, Wales was fully incorporated into England in the 16th century. Prior to that, it's status is unclear, but parts of it were clearly part of England, while the rest were the territories of the (non-Welsh) marcher lords. The Princes of Wales (or Gwynedd) before the 13th century acknowledged English suzerainty, and it is hard to see how they deserve to be listed, while the Kings of Mercia, Northumberland, Kent, Wessex, and so forth do not. Wales is not directly comparable to Scotland. At any rate, if we must, I'd rather just split up the page completely - a list of English monarchs, a list of Scottish monarchs, and a list of monarchs since the union. john k 16:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would List of monarchs of England and of Scotland be clearer? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not a matter of clarity. It's a matter of purpose. What's the point of a page that lists monarchs of two countries who we already have separate pages listing the monarchs of. We need to have a page which specifically lists post-union monarchs, and has a title that indicates that it lists them. List of British monarchs did so. This page does not, and until the word "British" is somewhere in an article title about lists of monarchs, we won't have one that does. john k 17:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with John. The article should be moved back to where it belongs. Deb 17:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I thought it was rather useful to have a list of the monarchs of England side by side with a list of the monarchs of Scotland, particularly as they will inevitably list the same people from James VI and I until the Act of Union (although it would help if the names for equivalent dates lined up a bit better). Which separate pages were you thinking of? List of monarchs of England is not as well formatted as this list, but I can see what you mean - it is duplicative to have two lists. List of monarchs of Scotland does not exist, but Kings of Scotland redirects here, as does Kings of England. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And where does the rest of the UK fit in? Deb 07:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not to mention Ireland. A good number of these people were also monarchs of that country (and still are of a part of the island). Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:16, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Well, there is always List of Kings of England, of Scotland, of Great Britain, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland... -- ALoan (Talk) 09:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perfect. A model of brevity. What about List of monarchs of the kingdoms and subkingdoms of Britain and Ireland since XXXX year? Or we could leave out the start year and add all the known Irish high kings and sub kings. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Or, how about (gasp!), "List of British monarchs"?!
Amazing, innit.
James F. (talk) 10:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Presumably omitting Irealnd pre-Union? And English monarchs pre-Britain? Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

List of British monarchs seems good to me for this page as it currently exists. Sigh. The idea that the page had to be moved because it didn't include "Welsh monarchs" is absurd. And the Irish situation - well, High Kings get their own list (and there's too many of them, anyway), while the Lords and Kings of Ireland after 1171 are exactly the same as the Kings of England...I'm going to move it back. john k 15:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scotia and Alba

Wondering which might have been the first monarch to styled of Scotland. I believe what we now call Scotland was Alba until perhaps the late 15th century, and Scotland (Scotia) meant what we now call Ireland. Kings and queens of Scots (in Alba) were not kings or queens of Scotland.

Laurel Bush 16:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Queen Mother

shouldn't she be under one of the Ireland catagories I don't think I saw her on the list unless she was consort and the Emperors/Empress of India list seems to be missing

Dudtz 7/30/05 2:19 PM EST

Why should the Queen Mother be under an Ireland category? Granted, she was a direct descendant of the Irish kings but then so are many other people. Directly she was the daughter of the Earl of Strathclyde, which is in Scotland, not Ireland. As for your second point there is a list of Emperors of India at Emperor of India. -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Earl of Strathmore, not Strathclyde. john k 15:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irony

The following sentence is composed of 62 discrete language units, or 'words', and ironically begins with the phrase, "To avoid confusion,":

To avoid confusion, historians in general thus refer to all monarchs up to 1707 as monarchs of England and Scotland (so explaining their two ordinals where they existed for "James" and "William"), with the monarch's title at all times accurately following the official name or names of the state or states they reigned over where it differed from the official royal title.

Huh?--24.107.190.6 06:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles II as King of Scotland

It seems to me that our current listing for Charles II is problematic. He was de facto King of Scotland not merely after 1660, but from 1649 to 1651. Even before he cut a deal with the Covenanters, Charles was recognized by them as king from the death of his father, just as his father was recognized as king up until his death, despite his status as a captive. A year later, Charles actually went to Scotland and was crowned, and, although Cromwell took Edinburgh at some point in there, Charles was still recognized through most of Scotland, and by pretty much all actual Scottish political groupings, as king until after his defeat at Worcester in the fall of 1651. Only then does the Commonwealth begin in Scotland. I think we should, if possible, separate out the table and show him as King of Scotland in 1649-1651 and again from 1660-1685. john k 06:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] King Louis

Before I go ahead and insert an extra king, I want to get some opinions. Between King John and Henry III, I think we should insert King Louis. In 1216 the English barons rebelled against King John and offered the throne to Louis VIII of France. Louis invaded and was proclaimed king in London in May 1216, although not crowned. The Wiki-article on the First Barons' War states that "with little resistance the prince entered London, and on June 14 captured Winchester and soon conquered over half of the British kingdom. At St Paul's Cathedral, Louis was accepted as ruler with great pomp and celebration in the presence of all of London. Many nobles, including the King of Scotland, gathered to give homage to him."

Edward V and Edward VIII were never crowned only proclaimed but still rate as kings, so why not Louis? Other monarchs have not been universally recognised eg Stephen and Lady Jane Grey. OK, the barons changed their minds and Louis had to give up the throne by signing the Treaty of Lambeth, but for a while he was king. I know it will ruin the mnemonics, but comments please. If there is consensus, I will add Louis. JMcC 17:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

We should add Louis. (user:DarkLordofthesithrevan)

I certainly think there is more than enough basis to include King Louis in the list. It is just distorted English historical denial which prevents Louis' short reign from being more widely known. Walshicus 01:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

King Louis should be listed. If we need a special treatment for contested monarchs, uncrowned ones and so forth, let's put those all to, say, italics and (possibly) with a footnote where the problem or contest is explained. We should pursue to high quality of details here, see List of Spanish monarchs as example. Marrtel 21:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Louis has about as much a claim as others; however, does any conventional source (or even slightly unconventional) list Louis as an English king? Remember, Wikipedia policy doesn't allow for original research or attempting to establish a new historical consensus.--Bkwillwm 04:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
That's the rub. Maybe there's a French source that lists Louis as King of England. JackofOz 04:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
On reflection, the reason he's not listed as a king of England is that, while he may have been accepted by the general populace, he was not a legitimate English monarch under the law, despite being "proclaimed". This proclamation was probably a different thing than the formal proclamations that occur with new monarchs these days. In any event, neither a proclamation nor a coronation make a non-monarch a monarch. The Treaty of Lambeth and Henry III of England articles refer to his "claim" to be king, which claim he later withdrew. So, even if he had been accepted by some people as "king" for a time, once he withdrew his claim he acknowledged that he had never been king. JackofOz 04:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
But law is not history; and in history, you cannot ex post facto wish away a very real historical episode, though perhaps you can in law. For over a year Louis was factually ruling in large parts of England as king, and if he gave up his claim later, it doesn't wipe away the reality. As for "making a non-monarch a monarch" -- there isn't a blood test you can do to see if somebody is really a king or not. The question is whether the candidate had both (a) the title (via coronation, proclamation, or what have you) and (b) a degree of power recognized by the English estates. RandomCritic 12:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-conquest regnal numbers for England

I have removed all pre-conquest supposed regnal numbers as they were never used by the English themselves, and are therefore not only retrospective but also innacurate (i.e. with regard to the Edwards). I strongly suspect that the Scots never used them either, but I don't know how to remedy that particular issue as yet.TharkunColl 12:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British Monarchs box

v • d • e
Monarchs of Britain
Flag of the Kingdom of Great Britain

Monarchs of the Kingdom of Great Britain*

Anne • George I† • George II† • George III†

Flag of the United Kingdom

George III†‡ • George IV‡ • William IV‡ • Victoria • Edward VII • George V** • Edward VIII** • George VI** • Elizabeth II**

* also Monarch of Ireland • ** also Monarch of the Commonwealth Realms • † also Elector of Hanover • ‡ also King of Hanover

Image:Virginia Company of London Seal.png

Why does it not feature Hanover, if the previous boxes mention Stadholder? I'm not even beginning to suggest India, but I think there should also be an indicator for France and perhaps Sweden. I also would prefer to see this specific monarch box be something like 1603-2006+, the Union of the Crowns. Don't believe me? Look at royal seals issued by King James I onward! Just because Parliament didn't catch up with the Crown, doesn't mean it has to hold the Monarchy down. This is about Monarchical Union, not Parliamentary Union. After all, Bonnie Prince Charlie did not take up arms to secure Scottish Independence. That is what prevented the majority of Scots from following his Jacobite Rising. IP Address 08:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is fundamentally flawed

Because it assumes that England and Scotland were of equal status, and equally independent - but this is simply not the case. From the time of Athelstan onwards Scotland regularly acknowledged England as its feudal overlord - and later on the Scottish king even had a seat in the English parliament. TharkunColl 07:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Feudal and Athelstan go together like fish and bicycle. If the King of England was the feudal overlord of Scotland, it would be easy to go through English court rolls and find Scots cases being heard by English courts. And in any case, one could make the same points of the vassal King of England and his overlord the King of France.

Henry, king of England, has submitted himself in every way to the counsel and will of Philip, king of France, so that whatever the king of France may provide and judge, the king of England will accomplish entirely and without contradiction. Truly then the aforementioned king of England again rendered homage to the king of France because, as we have said above, he had surrendered his lands to his lord the king of France; and the king of France returned his homage to him at the beginning of this settlement. (Medieval Sourcebook)

Cheers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Many have said that Scotland was more a fief of France, relying on French assistance in every episode to keep independent of England. IP Address 08:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Athelstan secured the submission of Scotland and other kingdoms in Britain at the Battle of Brunanburh in 937. Edgar also secured a similar submission, as did William and his successors. It's only the periods when Scotland was in revolt that we tend to hear about. As for England being a vassal of France, this is not true. The English king was only a vassal of the French king in right of his holdings in France, Normandy, Anjou, Aquitaine, etc. But, even if it were true, it would still not alter Scotland's general subservience to England. TharkunColl 10:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought you wanted to make a serious point. Since you don't, I won't waste any more of your time or mine. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am making a serious point. Scotland was a vassal of England for the majority of its history. TharkunColl 11:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names for early Scottish monarchs

Why was this article giving the names for Scottish monarchs through Donald III in their Gaelic forms? We are supposed to use the most commonly used forms in English, and those forms are most certainly the English forms, with a few exceptions where like Aed, where the Gaelic form is used. This is not to deny that these Kings and their courts spoke Gaelic, anymore than having Philip II of Spain or Philip VI of France or Frederick William IV of Prussia denies those monarchs having spoken Spanish, French, and German, respectively. These people's articles should obviously give their Gaelic names at the top, but I see no reason for the Gaelic name to be given in this list. john k 17:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's something I have also found odd and do not agree with. It seems there exists a couple of editors, active in that field, who have decided to promote Gaelic names instead of English ones in English Wikipedia. It's abundantly clear to me that it was Malcolm II and not Mael Coluim II who is better known to English readers. Their Gaelic names are all very well to present in explanatories of he first paragraph of biography articles, but it's height of folly to push them to all sorts of other places. We do not generally say "King Lajos II of Hungary" but "king Louis II of Hungary" in english and that's something medieval Gaelic notables should also follow. (Actually, in these lists which list scottish monarchs in sequence, I would not object too much if the list presents the engliush name AND then, in parentheses, the Gaelic name.) Marrtel 21:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
In Oram's The Canmore Kings the first sentence of the book reads "In the year 1040, Donnchad mac Crinain (Duncan I), king of Scots, led an army into Moray against his kinsman and rival Macbethad (Macbeth)." That's an introductory book for general readers. Malcolm III is introduced as "Máel Coluim mac Donnchada ... known as Malcolm III", Donald III is called Domnall mac Donnchada, Donnchad mac Maíl Coluim is described (dubiously) as "better known as Duncan II". Two years later in David I, a longer book, but still a popularish one, Oram abandoned Malcolm III and Duncan II for Máel Coluim mac Donnchada and Donnchad mac Maíl Coluim.
So far as I remember Archie Duncan used angloform names throughout in The Making of the Kingdom (1975), but he used gaeliform names + regnal number to 1097, except for Duncan II, in The Kingship of the Scots (2002). In both cases the works are by the same publisher as well as the same author. Wormald's Scotland: A History (2005) uses gaeliform names, but replaces mac + genitive by son of + nominative, although, for reasons best known to the OUP's editorial team, Máel Coluim appears as Máel-Coluim and Mac Bethad as Mac-bethad. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure some books use the Gaelic names. But it's pretty clear that the Anglicized forms are way more common in English. Like Marrtel, I wouldn't mind if this list gives the Gaelic names in addition to the English names. john k 00:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

On a related (but more extreme) note, all the early Scottish monarchs seem to have been moved to their Gaelic names. I'd move them back but it'd take about six months. Is there some form of bot that could do it? Proteus (Talk) 19:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles II in Scotland

I think this has been discussed before, but shouldn't the listing for Charles II note that he was de facto as well as de jure King of Scotland from his father's death until the Battle of Worcester in 1651? He was actually crowned and everything, and there was certainly no republic in Scotland until 1651. I'm not sure how to indicate it on the table, though. john k 17:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This list should carefully reflect what actually happened, and refrain from simplifications, from promoting one side's view (even if it's the victors' writing of history) and this list should list also those whose tenancy was not undisputed, provided it's not fully ridiculous (de jure claims are generally ridiculous, but de facto monarchies are not). Marrtel 21:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
In what sense are de jure claims ridiculous? The Old Pretender never became de facto monarch (well, maybe in Scotland in 1745-1746, but even that's pretty questionable), but his de jure claims were the basis of a serious political movement and two rebellions that seriously threatened the Hanoverian regime. Even later, in 19th century France, the de jure claims of the Comte de Chambord, while never actually leading to him becoming de facto king, were nevertheless the center of a considerable political movement, and he nearly received the crown on a couple of occasions. In the middle ages, de jure claims were considerably more serious, in that they very often led to protracted civil wars - for a couple of examples, note the Hundred Years War, the Wars of the Roses, the War of the Breton Succession, the considerable civil warring in the Kingdom of Naples in the late 14th and early 15th centuries, and so on and so forth. Now, I think that de jure claims should not be sufficient to get someone listed in a "list of monarchs" article, but that's not the same thing as being "ridiculous". Hell, even people with de jure claims which were themselves incredibly dubious - Perkin Warbeck, for instance - came dangerously close to de facto rule. The dynastic emphasis of the European middle ages means that de jure claims are rarely completely silly. john k 00:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
For our lists of monarchs, the de jure monarchs are ridiculous to list. Such as, speaking about Jacobite ones, Charles IV of England. If there is a list of "claimants to" a certain throne, which actually often is notable thing enough for a viable article, they are welcome to such lists, but not to be mingled with real monarchs and real "anti-kings". I would not take away such monarchs like, Germany's list, Rudolf of Rheinfelden, who was anti-king of the Romans for a certain clear period, they are welcome to have their places in lists of reigning monarchs, generally in a place which directly says that during this-and-this monarchs reign, these two years a rival ruled (a part of the country or whatever). I would just pre-empt foolish listings here of all sorts of de jure monarchs, such as Allardyce kings of Scotland. They can have their own article, like Allardyce pretension to Scottish monarchy or whatever. Marrtel 21:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I don't think we actually disagree on anything. Just a disagreement on what "ridiculous" means. john k 22:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Merger

This content does not differ greatly from that of either List of monarchs of Scotland or List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England. Why are the articles not merged into this one? Alternitavely, this article could loose the information about the earlier monarchs and become monarchs of the United Kingdom. The situation just seemed to me to be slightly pointless. Lofty 14:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Mainly because this article is extremely badly presented. Anyone looking for a simple list of kings of a particular country will be sadly disappointed if they arrive here first. This one also gives the impression that England and Scotland were somehow equal, whereas for large periods in the middle ages Scotland was an English fief, and its king sat in the English house of lords. TharkunColl 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The reason for which I was proposing the merger was because I liked the presentation of this article...What would you suggest then? The lists one underneath the other? I personally like the current presentation. Lofty 14:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The whole concept of this article is flawed in my opinion. Why, for example, exclude the English kingdoms such as Wessex and Mercia before they were merged? I have no practical suggestion for improvement, but I would certainly retain the separate articles for each country as simple lists. TharkunColl 17:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welsh monarchs

This article should give greater prominence to the rulers of Wales, or the more prominent ones, before annexation by England. It was of enough concern for a Prince of Wales to be invented by the English monarchy, and for the Tudors to exploit their Welsh ancestry. --MacRusgail 17:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC) p.s. Yes, before anyone asks, I am aware that Wales was divided at this point...

And presumably Irish ones as well. It seems perverse to have an article claiming to list monarchs in the British Isles which is limited to Wessex, England, Scotland, &c. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Of Great Britain or of United Kingdom

A quick question, I noticed the monarchs start becoming "of the United Kingdom" rather than "of Great Britain". I believe the Union of the Crowns was in 1603 but should there be any difference between the two scentences and is there an exact time when the title became "of the United Kingdom" instead of "of Great Britain" ?

Sorry just read the page and it makes sense now mjgm84 15:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment: related articles and lists.

The presentation of lists of the various monarchs of the various kingdoms has become complicated by recent edits by User:TharkunColl, who aparantly does not like this article, and is attempting to create POV forks such as List of monarchs of Great Britain, Monarchs of England and Great Britain and List of monarchs of England and Great Britain. Various moves, redirects, and cut-and-paste moves have recently been performed on these articles. The current situation is unacceptable, since there is not currently any article on the King of England (it is now a double redirect), which has dozens of links to it in many articles. I propose the following solution:

There needs to be some sort of coherent presentation of this material, the current situation is very confusing, and the millions of double redirects is not acceptable. Comments? --JW1805 (Talk) 19:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses

Perhaps the problem (as expressed at FAC) is the article name. This impresses me as an excellent list, near FL quality (and I've created two FLs), yet despite a good descriptive introduction the title does imply a larger scope than it actually has. Coming from the other side of "the pond" I may be missing some of the nuances, but POV forking is unacceptable. Durova 20:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There are articles on the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland which should be taken into account in any reorganisation. Exactly what purpose they serve is unclear; most of the material is regurgitated from elsewhere and what isn't is more than likely wrong anyway. The Scotland one was created "because there's one on England", hardly a good reason. The generally shambolic nature of the Irish material can't be overstated: Kings of Tara, King of Ireland, High King of Ireland, Irish kings and List of High Kings of Ireland need revising and magimixing; a large part of the material is List of legendary kings of Britain-esque and in no sense historical. I haven't looked at the Welsh material and how, if at all, it corresponds. Finally, I suggest that the British Isles thing needs to go, Britain and Ireland would be less likely to offend anyone's sensibilities. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What do we mean here?

We can set arbitrary dates for the unification of kingdoms. Offa of Mercia assumed the title King of the English in 774. Scotland did not incorporate Strathclyde until the mid tenth century. Which is senior? TharkunColl 00:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"The notion that Offa claimed to be 'king of the English', or 'king of the whole country of the English', has been shown to depend, however, on charters forged in the tenth century. In his own day he was 'king of the Mercians' ..." (Keynes, "Offa of Mercia", Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, p.341.) Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, we have not made it in any way apparent that Scotland was a vassal of England for most of its history as a kingdom. We really should indicate this. The Scottish king even sat in the English parliament. In other words, by presenting the Scottish kings alongside the English, we are not comparing like with like. TharkunColl 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

When exactly did the Scottish kings sit in the English parliament, and was this not in their role as English peers, rather than as Kings of Scots? The King of England was a vassal of the King of France, but that did not mean that England was a vassal of France - it was not. Scotland was considered a vassal of England, but not for "most of its history as a kingdom". Certainly there was no such vassalage between 1314 and 1707 (1603-1707 saw a personal union, but Scotland was not technically subordinated to England in any formal way, except between 1651 and 1660). john k 01:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] List of Monarchs, Hmm.

"The list of monarchs below can be exhaustive."

Does this mean that it NOT exhaustive, or it just is exhausting? Brendandh 21:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear what it means. In any case, it adds no value, so I've removed it. JackofOz 23:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Kingdom of England was founded in 827, not in 871

Egbert of Wessex united the Seven kingdoms in the Kingdom of England in 827. Please address. --Damifb 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Or 12 July 927 and Æthelstan. Well, that's what Simon Kirby thinks (Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, p. 514). Ecgberht was king of Wessex, and no more, or no less, king of England than Offa, Æthelberht, Oswiu, Penda, Edwin, or Rædwald. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_monarchs_in_the_British_Isles_80b2.html"