Talk:Lists of monarchs in the British Isles

message: Is there any academic worth in lumping together the Kings of Ireland with the monarchs of the UK/Britain/England/Scotland and Wales? This makes about as much sense as having a page with a list of monarchs for France and Germany combined.  "British Isles", is a geographic term that was largely adopted in Britain and is not recognised in Ireland.  A list like this could be viewed as contentious.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:842A:3858:F96B:D475:C1A6:ED86 (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there isn't. But if you try nominating it for deletion, I doubt you will succeed. Deb (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: British Isles

message: 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)
thread_title: Charles II

message: 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)
replies: text: Which statement are you referring to? It is always the highest ordinal that is used....--Camaeron (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: English ordinal?=

message: 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)
thread_title: Illegitimacy  of [[Edward VI]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Harthacanute 

message: 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)
thread_title: Scotia and Alba

message: 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)
replies: text: Earl of Strathmore, not Strathclyde. john k 15:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Mother 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Irony 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Charles II as King of Scotland 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: That's the rub.  Maybe there's a French source that lists Louis as King of England.  JackofOz 04:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  King Louis 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pre-conquest regnal numbers for England 

message: 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)
thread_title:  British Monarchs box 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: This article is fundamentally flawed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Charles II in Scotland 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Possible Merger

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Welsh monarchs

message: 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)
thread_title: Of Great Britain or of United Kingdom

message: 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:
*Create a King of England (or Monarch of England) article.  This will be an article about the institution (there isn't any article like that currently).
*Create a King of Scotland article (or Monarch of Scotland, or King of Scots, we can argue about that later).  Same deal as above.  The opening section of List of monarchs of Scotland should go in this article, since it isn't a list, it is the nucleus of an article about the Scottish monarchy.
*Keep List of monarchs in the British Isles.  The above two article will probably also have lists, I don't think we can avoid duplication there.  For an example of what I am talking about, see King of Ireland.
*Various other articles like King of Great Britain, etc can link to List of monarchs in the British Isles.
*There is also the British monarchy article to consider.  It does have sections on the English and Scottish monarchy.  So, either put links to the separate articles there, or just make these links redirect to these sections (I don't really like that, I think the institutions should have their own articles)
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)
thread_title:  Request for comment: related articles and lists. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Responses

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  What do we mean here? 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  List of Monarchs, Hmm. 

message: Egbert of Wessex united the Seven kingdoms in the Kingdom of England in 827. Please address.
--Damifb 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Kingdom of England was founded in 827, not in 871 

message: I have tagged the section "complications of title and style" for the first paragraph, which is unintelligible. What are the following supposed to mean: "While Tudor monarchs continued to claim France and not actually have this based on occupation, the British Stuarts were pensioners of the House of Bourbon just as the Scottish Stewarts were of the House of Valois in opposition to the Plantagenets' actual possession of France." and "The French Revolution then rendered a rather Whiggish opinion on the Crown of France to be true, although there was a minor Tory outrage over relinquishing the traditional title."? I am relatively familiar with the subject, so I can extrapolate, but God help those who can't! Brendandh 22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging

message: I propose to rename this article to reflect the actual content of the article, keeping in mind that the article doesn't duplicate existing articles.  The original non-duplicated parts appear to place the English and Scottish monarch timelines side-by-side, therefore I propose the following name Timeline of Scottish and English Monarchs Bardcom (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't discuss a rename until the AfD (linked above) is finished, though. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also worth pointing out, I think, that the English list begins before the Scottish list - though not in this article because it's impossible to edit without throwing the whole thing off (and was originally taken from a French article). So if it's to stay, we need to address this problem, then perhaps rename it to Timeline of English and Scottish monarchs (note also the lower case "m" on monarchs as per Wikipedia naming conventions). TharkunColl (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer to extend the useful side-by-side timeline backwards to cover Anglo-Saxon, Pictish kings etc, and maybe to rename to List of monarchs in Britain (or "Timeline"). Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be good, if it could possibly be arranged. There were at least seven kingdoms in the English Heptarchy, not to mention the Picts, Dal Riata, Strathclyde and Orkney in Scotland. Also there are earlier rulers of Britain such as Carausius. TharkunColl (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be good. The original intention for this article was that it would be a complete list of historical rulers of any part of Britain. The Heptarchy certainly falls within that remit. That is why the article was originally entitled "List of British monarchs", a title which is now in use for an article dealing with monarchs of all Britain. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So would it be possible to create a table with at least a dozen columns, maybe more? TharkunColl (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that it is, although for many it might not all display without scrolling across. But I'm no expert on these. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Remember folks, the monarchs of Scotland & England end at 1707. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We could just call it Timeline of British monarchs, which includes both England and Scotland. Does anyone know how to create a table with more than a dozen columns so we can include all the kingdoms of the Heptarchy and the early Scottish kingdoms as well? If we can't do that, then this article still remains pointless and misleading. TharkunColl (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes indeed. The main constraint will be space. Firstly, then, lets try and list all the little kingdoms that need to be included. Should we draw the line at tiny little ones such as Magonsaete, or not? TharkunColl (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say yes - leave them out I mean. In any case we don't have many names, do we? Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Timeline of British monarchs would also be a misleading title. The monarchs before 1707 were not British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't really be misleading because the term British can apply to anything from Britain (the island). It doesn't just refer to the state. TharkunColl (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  (ec)That is why I prefer "in Britain", as above, which is less ambiguous. Even disregarding the state name/time issues, "British" implies "of Britain" - ie the whole of it, which most of these were not. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To say "a British king" doesn't imply that the king ruled all of Britain. Merely that he was a king, and was British. Caratacus was a British king, but only ruled a small part of the island. TharkunColl (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is ambiguous, I feel. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Less so than the current title. For instance from 1940 until 1945 Haakon VII of Norway was a monarch in the British Isles. However he was neither a British monarch nor a monarch of Britain, nor a monarch of any part of Britain. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's just being silly. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, thanks for the putdown! Perhaps you can explain why it's silly. That would make your statement look less like a personal attack and more like a reasoned argument. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the possibility you were being serious never occured to me. Such an article would not be notable I think in any case.  Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: IMHO, the current article title is the more accurate. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Monarchs is better, I think, otherwise yes. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename Article 

message: I intially reverted the anon edits, as I thought he has re-arranged the article without consensus; but it turns out Tharky was attempting re-arrangment without consensus. Tharky, what's up? GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus was there, before all those voters came along who wanted to keep it as long as it was improved, then didn't lift a finger to improve it. TharkunColl (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, on that note I'll revert to your version. But, I'm still uncertain about it. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there are lists I've missed. We can keep adding them as we find them. TharkunColl (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At last someone has had the balls to do something.--Gazzster (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But not to improve the article! Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Well I wanted a delete. Or as a compromise perhaps a redirect to British monarchs...--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: But I would like to express my thanks to TharkunColl for all his efforts in improving this article. At the moment the article is worth keeping. --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! TharkunColl (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What's up?

message: Hi, is there any way we can preserve the side-by-side table that was in the older article?  Has it been moved somewhere?  It was very good and very useful. Bardcom (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it has been moved anywhere, but it is still in the history of this article. But what to call it? Would Timeline of English and Scottish monarchs do? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 12:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See extensive discussions above. The article has not been improved by its removal! Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I've made a suggestion above too - no point in discussing the title in two place. Bardcom (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't see the point in such an article. And where would it stop? Arguably, it'd be more useful to have a side-by-side table of English monarchs and bishops of Lincoln, the latter being prolly as about important to the English monarch for most of middle ages as the Scottish king. Certainly, we'd need English monarchs and archbishops of Canterbury, York, bishops of London, Durham, Kings of France, Germany, Castile, Popes; then kings of France and Navarre, France and Germany, Germany and Poland, etc, etc. Whole new encyclopedia there! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The side-by-side table 

message: Why is Rheged placed under Wales in the list.  Although it was a "Celtic" kingdom the bulk of its territory was in what is now England? Penrithguy (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, useless miniheaders. Strathclyde and Rheged, Dumnonia etc were Brittonic Kingdoms in present day Scotland, England etc. Seems a little intemperate in the present day climate, but in my opinion these kingdoms should be organised on racial lines rather than in which present day country their territory lay. Brendandh (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rheged