Template talk:English monarchs

message: Until 1603 the English and Scottish Crowns were separate, although links between the two were always close - members of the two Royal families intermarried on many occasions. Following the Accession of King James VI of Scotland (I of England) to the English Throne, a single monarch reigned in the United Kingdom.  The last four hundred years have seen many changes in the nature of the Monarchy in the United Kingdom. From the end of the 17th century, monarchs lost executive power and they increasingly became subject to Parliament, resulting in today's constitutional Monarchy.
and
The Stuarts were the first kings of the United Kingdom. King James I of England who began the period was also King James VI of Scotland, thus combining the two thrones for the first time.
See British monarchs' family tree.  68.110.8.21 11:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, James VI & I did unite the crowns, but this template is not concerned with Scottish monarchs – it's English monarchs! If you are in fact asserting that the Stuarts were all British monarchs, then they would all belong on British monarchs! That would, however, be wrong, as they were all King of England, King of Scots and King of Ireland separately until 1707. For instance, when the Hanoverians were Kings of GB and of Hanover, those two were not the same crown. DBD 13:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Older

message: Are any of the Nicknames really relevant to the list? (By nickname i mean richard I the Lionheart) Why cant we just have Richard I? Views on the matter would be greatly appreciated. (Electrobe (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknames 

message: I won't remove them, but I see at some point someone readded the bretwaldas (plus a couple more).  I don't think they really fit, particularly the early ones -- Aelle, and probably Ceawlin, never had much more than fairly local overlordships, and certainly didn't rule all of what is now England.  To call even the later ones monarchs seems to stretch the meaning of the term somewhat too; the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms existed, with their own kings, and there are sometimes specific exclusions of authority, such as Aethelberht not being subject to Edwin.  I think starting with Alfred is as early as this needs to go.  Mike Christie (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless they were listed and recognised by Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - the latter, in particular, a quasi-official document of the English state. Others, such as Ethelbald and Offa, bore titles such as King of Britain and King of the English. TharkunColl (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: It doesn't conflate two kingdoms. It was the same kingdom in this case, the fact they are referred to differently in popular sources today is just an accident of later trends. Drest is the first king to have a synchronisation, that's the only reason to start with him. You could add another few dozens kings. Or you could subtract a bunch. The first king mentioned in a contemporary source is Galam Cennelath, the first who clearly ruled the territory later known as "Scotland" is Bridei son of Beli, etc. I don't think having the Bretwalda here is such a big deal. They are the precedent for the Kingdom of England/Britain formed in later centuries, though you doubt if some of those early guys actually had that status (Kentish transmission of info to Bede ... hint hint). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As with the Picts, some info has been transmitted through a number of sources, especially the early rulers. But this is how the English of Alfred's day perceived their own history. TharkunColl (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bretwaldas 

message: The Cross of St. George was not used pre-1066, and the Wyvern of Wessex was not used before English unification under the House of Wessex. ðarkuncoll 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags

message: King of the Britons doesn't include any of the people listed on this template, so why are they so marked here? And why is any Mercian king listed as a Bretwalda? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: King of the Britons apparently only lists those Kings of the Britons who were ethnically British/Welsh, and is little more than OR in my opinion. Those English rulers marked here as overlords of Britain are those who had secured the submission of the Scots and others, such as Athelstan, or who used the title. The first section used to say "Overlords or Bretwaldas of the English", but someone has evidently removed the word "Overlords". It would certainly be incorrect and misleading not to list the Mercian overlords, however, since they were probably more powerful than any others, and, it is believed, were not included in the "official" Bretwalda list out of anti-Mercian bias. ðarkuncoll 23:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No Anglo-Saxon kings claimed to be king of the Britons,  nor were they called that by chroniclers. If you want to claim that C10th charter and numismatic evidence is meaningful, you'll be wanting a source for that. Who knows, maybe there are some. But not for Æthelbald I fear. And Bretwaldas are those people listed by the ASC, and no Mercians are on the list. Yes, the source is biased, but that's what it says. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A number of Anglo-Saxon kings claimed to be Kings of Britain (as indicated here) - but not of the Britons. The article King of the Britons has got nothing to do with this one really. As for the Mercian overlords, I suggest, then, that we simply replace the word "Bretwalda" with "Overlord", since this will give a more accurate representation of the facts (with possibly someting like "or Bretwaldas" in brackets). When Bede listed them he didn't use the word Bretwalda either, though his list was later copied by the ASC which did use it. ðarkuncoll 01:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A great many of the later kings claimed to be kings of France, and Jamie the Saxt was king of Great Britain, according to him, but those are [not! Angus McLellan  (Talk) 01:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Athelstan for a start off secured the submission of the Scots and many other kingdoms in Britain. As for James I, I have often argued that the list of British monarchs should begin with him, rather than Anne. ðarkuncoll 01:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's something best dealt with in the Athelstan article I think. This is a template, it doesn't do nuances. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 01:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But it does list those who were also monarchs of Ireland, and Scotland. Which information is right to include? ðarkuncoll 01:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not much room for debate on also-of-Scotland or also-of-Ireland, is there? That seems to me to be indisputably right for inclusion. But someone may be along any minute to disagree. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 01:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kings of the Britons? 

message: Technically the Bretwaldas aren't monarchs of England but of smaller predessecor states. Personnally I think that they should have there own template seperate. The Quill (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Bretwaldas really Monarchs 

message: I don't think that Oliver and Richard Cromwell should be included. They were not monarchs. They were heads of state, but the template is called English and British monarchs, not English and British heads of state. Surtsicna (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They were monarchs. Cromwell, in his time, even called himself "Oliver" as a monarch would. They had full monarchical powers, held office for life, and were hereditary. Not to include them would be remiss, and the note clearly states they were Lords Protector. ðarkuncoll 08:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

text: (ec) I'm inclined to think that this template is becoming unwieldy and, not to put too fine a point on it, rather silly. Navigation templates are meant to be just for that: navigation. They are supposed to link articles for which there is a justifiable reason why a reader should wish to jump from article A to article B in a single click. Why someone should wish to go from "Athelstan the Glorious" to "Fiji" is somewhat difficult to see. Navigation templates should consist of obviously linked articles only. They should not need to explain concepts, or have multiple qualifying footnotes, and there should be justification for not sticking to standard colours and layouts. There is a point were decorativeness becomes confusion. DrKiernan (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You can remove the Commonwealth realms if you like, I wasn't sure whether to include them or not anyway - it was just for logical consistency (and they are, in any case, hidden away at the bottom). ðarkuncoll 08:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that both Cromwells should be included if the timespan of the template goes beyond 1603. Str1977 (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cromwells 

message: :::The 1707 Union Act, was not a English conquest of the Scottish. Remember we discussed before, at the related Monarchy articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was indeed not a conquest, but rather a corporate take over (the conquest came a bit later, in 1715 and 1745). ðarkuncoll 15:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn' mind seeing "Template:Scottish and British monarchs" created. That hasn't existed before; I merged the Scottish template with the British to make "Template:Pictish, Scottish and Brittish monarchs". I didn't split up the Pictish and Scottish template. I don't think any editors would oppose the former. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Oh, this tedious business again.  The "new" Kingdom of Great Britain was not new at all, but a continuation of the old Kingdom of England under a new name, and now including Scotland.  Thus, the Lord Chancellor of England became the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain; the Lord High Treasurer of England became the Lord High Treasurer of Great Britain; the Lord High Admiral of England became the Lord High Admiral of Great Britain; the Westminster Parliament of the Kingdom of England was expanded to include members from Scotland, and so forth.  But it wasn't a merger of equals - it's only later legend that makes it such.  john k (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The 1707 Act of Union

message: If this Template is meant to show continuation (which IMHO it doesn't), not only does it exclude the predecessor Scottish monarchy; it also exclude the con-current monarchies of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I had put them in, as a footnote (all 31 of them, since the list is historical). But the consensus seems to be to not include them. ðarkuncoll 18:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This Template is a shambles, it's un-encylopedic (due to it's inaccurate impression). GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's incorrect - almost all encyclopedias and works of reference give the information in precisely this form. ðarkuncoll 18:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, my F&W encyolopedia (yep that one), keeps the English, Scottish & British seperate. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note Canada has its own template, Template:Canadian monarchs. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 18:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares about the other 116 monarchies - this is about England and Britain! Saint Nevis or Canada do not count. Str1977 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

text: This is totally ridiculous business.  What is unencyclopedic is to pretend that there is some great break in English history in 1707, when, in fact, Queen Anne continued to rule it with pretty much exactly the same ministers she had had before, and with a slightly expanded parliament.  1707 is a great break in Scottish history, but in England the continuities are much more marked than the discontinuities.  Note the rather comparable case of Spanish monarchs.  At almost the same time as the Union, the various kingdoms of the Iberian peninsula (besides Portugal) were effectively merged together for the first time into a single "Kingdom of Spain".  Our list of Spanish monarchs takes no note of this, however, having decided to list all the rulers at once from the accession of Carlos I onwards, almost two centuries before.  If we were to have any break, it would actually make more sense to have the break when the personal union occurred, and not with the union of the kingdoms.  The template is, after all, about monarchs, not about kingdoms. But I don't think there's any good reason to have any split at all. john k (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What about the other 15 monarchies

message: As there was only 1 desenter, I'm going to be making changes to this Pro-English PoV Template (in the next few days), to make it neutral. I'm going to delete the British monarchs & then move this article to Template: English monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll support you. Surtsicna (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you be doing the same with the Scottish and Pictish ones? Or is that POV okay? ðarkuncoll 18:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm planning on splitting that template into Template:Pictish monarchs & Template:Scottish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Support --Jza84 |  Talk   19:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Are you suggesting that Scottish monarchs be added to this Template? GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Here's a zinger. We have Template: English, Scottish and British monarchs. Also we have Template: English monarchs, Template: Scottish monarchs, Template: Pictish monarchs. Considering the Picts, Templates could also be created for the Nortumberian monarchs, Wessex, Essex etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Pictish & Scottish, definitley must be split. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planning on reducing & renaming 

message: After many ideas of expanding and reducing this template, I propose that a new template (Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs) should replace this template. The new templates includes Scottish monarchs, after this template was accused of being anti-Scottish. This template would redirect to the new temnplate. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Kingdom of England & Kingdom of Scotland merged to become the Kingdom of Great Britain; not the Kingdom of Greater England. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your point?  Assertion is not argument.  I'll propose the following instead "The Kingdom of England annexed the Kingdom of Scotland (through a consensual treaty, admittedly) and then changed its name to Kingdom of Great Britain."  I think this expresses what actually happened much more accurately than your formulation.  The monarch would reside in London, and, in fact, did not visit Scotland for over one hundred years; the Scottish parliament was abolished, the English parliament survived; it retained almost exactly the same organization in England, but merely expanded to include members for Scottish counties and boroughs (and not as many as there were for English counties and boroughs); English peers got to continue to sit in the House of Lords, while Scottish peers only had the right to elect representatives to it; the Lord Chancellor of England became Lord Chancellor of Great Britain; the Lord High Treasurer of England became Lord High Treasurer of Great Britain; the Lord High Admiral of England became Lord High Admiral of Great Britain; the Privy Council and Privy Seal of England became Privy Council and Privy Seal of Great Britain; the English Secretaries of State continued to conduct all foreign affairs for the new combined kingdom, while the Scottish secretary of state was initially subordinate, and then quickly abolished; the succession for the newly united kingdom was to follow the English Act of Settlement.  There were of course other areas where England and Scotland can be seen to have maintained parity - Scotland kept its own legal system and its own established church, most notably.  But it's simply absurd to pretend that the new kingdom was a merger of equals.  The English did not view it that way, and most Scots didn't view it that way, either - the treaty was massively unpopular in Scotland.  I'd add that, until the early twentieth century, at least, "England" was considered to be a perfectly appropriate and correct name for the whole country when speaking informally.  It is simply acknowledging the overwhelming weight of evidence to acknowledge that the Kingdom of Great Britain was basically a continuation of the Kingdom of England under another name. That this new kingdom was not called the "Kingdom of Greater England" is completely irrelevant to such a point. john k (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the 1707 Union Act: the Kingdoms England & Scotland merged and became the Kingdom of Great Britain. England did not conquer Scotland; It didn't become an expanded Kingdom of England. PS: Holy smokers, the British monarchs had English monarchial ancestors and Scottish monarchial ancestors. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  @ John , even where Scotland retained parts of independence, it was purely for pragmatic reasons. Re church, the government didn't want Scotland's almost fully armed presbyterian fundamentalist middle classes rising up, allying with anti-establishment factions in England and, re law, it probably didn't want administrative anarchy nor a huge part of the class of law clerks being unable to do their job. Hey GoodDay, there is not really any purpose in a talk page if you just ignore substantial points made by other contributors. Yes, there is an official union and legally there was a merger, but John is saying this is just cosmetics, chocolate smeared on the bitter pill of conquest so it could go down better. John's point is correct. What's more, and what John didn't say, almost everyone regards the "British" monarchy as the same one as the "English" monarchy. Few histories of England take 1707 or 1800 for that matter as more than minor points along the great road travelled by the English state from Alfred the Great to the present. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Scottish monarchs are as much Elizabeth II's ancestors, as the English monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and so are the Danish monarchs and French monarchs.  What's your point?  This discussion seems to revolve around GoodDay ignoring every point anyone makes and throwing out the same non sequiturs over and over again. In this case, note that he simply repeated the exact same completely meaningless point that he had made before Deacon's comment, as though it proves anything. john k (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It repeats what I've said above (that I support the expansion of this Template). However, I did make a mistake. I shouldn't have commented on Deacon's (and your's) opposes to the expansion. My apologies, as we surley can agree to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course we can "agree to disagree", but the point is that you are presenting specious arguments, and are completely unwilling to address the substance of arguments made against your position.  That always makes "agreeing to disagree" more difficult. john k (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your opinon. I respect your reasons for opposing expansion & hope to get the same respect form you, for my opinon. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly respect that I disagree with you, and have little hope of persuading you.  I would have more respect for your opinion if you would actually try to engage with my arguments, instead of repeating the same phrases over and over again. john k (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather not continue this back and forth tug of war. It doesn't do the discussion any good. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not when you continually refuse to respond to anybody's substantive arguments. john k (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned expansion 

message: Seeing as "continuing attempts at discussion with Good Day" are bound to be worthless, I'm going to make the alternate proposal of having what was here before GoodDay got involved -
That this list template all monarchs from Alfred to Elizabeth II, and Template:Scottish monarchs cover rulers of Scotland up to 1707.  I do this on the basis that the supposed "equality" of the union was a transparent fiction, for reasons I expressed above, because 1707 is not an especially important date in English history, and because a common list of English and British monarchs from Alfred (or Egbert) to the present is how such lists are normally done.  Thoughts? john k (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, you may disagree with GoodDay, but he seems generally civil and I don't see the need to try to exclude him from debate. I really don't want to get into some lengthy debate about the creation of the UK, and I share some of your (revisionist) ideas, but I would just like to see the new template in use without being rapidly altered. 1707 was a significant date in the governance of Britain, as for the first time MPs from all over Great Britain were represented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and England and Scotland ceased to exist as sovereign entities. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely my argument is not revisionist at all, but the traditional picture that is given of what happened in 1707.  1707 is obviously significant in English history, but the Glorious Revolution in 1688-9 and the Hanoverian Succession in 1714 are pretty clearly more significant dates in English history, and have always been treated as such.  It was a far more significant event in Scottish history.  As far as GoodDay, perhaps I was unclear.  I have no intention of excluding him from debate.  He is welcome to continuing to express his opinion, and if he has anything new to say, I'm happy to read it and consider it.  His opinion in a straw poll is obviously worth as much as anybody else's.  But continuing to try to make actual arguments to refute him is pointless, because he doesn't listen to them.  He's made up his mind, and will continue to repeat platitudes until he gets his way.  I will be happy to admit my error in the event that he actually wants to engage in persuasive argument beyond what he's already said.  john k (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Anyway I've restored the full list. ðarkuncoll 22:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? We've got Template: English, Scottish and British monarchs. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because to exclude the post-1707 monarchs is wrong. And I notice someone has added the Picts to that one too - are you going to add the Bretwaldas? How big and unwieldy should it be? ðarkuncoll 22:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No it aint & you are free to add the Bretwaldas to the Englis, Scottish and British monarchs template. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate proposal 

message: Even with the disputedness, isn't it a little much to say that Jane Grey was "also ruler of Ireland"?  In retrospect, she has never been considered to be the de jure queen, and she wasn't the de facto queen of much more than London.  By the time Ireland even could have learned about Edward VI's death, Mary would have been firmly in control in London, no?  I know it's just a footnote, but it seems particularly dubious. john k (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, Matilda, Henry the Young King, Jane & Philip should be deleted from this template, List of English monarchs and List of Irish monarchs. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: She was "Queen of Ireland" as much as she was "Queen of England", in that she claimed that territory as part of her royal style. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 15:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Old Pretender was king in the same sense as that, but he's not listed.  And by that logic she was "also ruler of France."  Whatever status Jane has on this list it has to be from her de facto authority, not any supposed de jure claim, which was much more dubious than that of the Old Pretender, whom we do not include.  Jane's de facto authority was effectively limited to London.  As such, she was never "ruler of Ireland."  In general, though, I agree with Good Day (astonishing, I know!) - all of the marginal rulers ought to be removed from the template. john k (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The essential legal fact is that if a monarch is legitimate, no matter how short his reign it encompasses all his territory, even if they didn't get to hear about it. We seem to have some sort of absurd notion that Jane's authority was limited to just London, as if monarchical right was some sort of energy, slowly moving outwards from an epicentre. The fact of the matter is that Jane was proclaimed monarch by the privy council, and under the prevailing law at the time, that made her monarch. ðarkuncoll 23:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the place for discussing Jane's status. If I were to push my POV here, I'd say that Jane needs to be removed because I do not believe that Divine Right of Kings overrides Acts of Parliament. I do not believe she was de iure queen (Mary I being designated heir by an Act of Parliament) and I do not believe she was de facto queen either (her father-in-law being the true ruler during her "reign"). However, Wikipedia is not place for anyone's POV, let alone mine; there are scholars which consider her a legitimate ruler, so Jane has to be included. Same for the other "marginal rulers".Surtsicna (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether she should be listed as having "also ruled over Ireland" should, I think depend on the facts.  Was she ever recognized in Ireland?  Did the Lords Justices proclaim her in Dublin? There should have to be evidence of such before we say she ruled Ireland.  john k (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

text:  I think this is why I don't do modern history, there are no debates arising from the treatment of a past society's law and technicalities as present fact. We have the distinction between nominal ruler and actual ruler. If Jane is an actual and nominal ruler, put her on the list; if she is merely nominal according to some set of customs at the time, well, that's fascinating and all, but it doesn't make her a monarch. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If she is merely nominal according to some set of customs at the time, well, that's fascinating and all, but it doesn't make her a monarch. Unfortunatly, it is not that easy. For example, Henry VI's wife deserves to be on the list of de facto English monarchs more than he does. John I of France was undisputably king de iure, but he reigned as a baby and died as a baby, so he was hardly a de facto monarch. The problem with Jane is that some scholars recognize her as nominal monarch, while others don't; at the same time, nobody would recognize her as actual ruler since the power was in the hands of her father-in-law.Surtsicna (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "also ruler of Ireland"