Talk:List of British monarchs

message: I've created a new article, It needs citation and expansion. This article deals with the British monarchs (post-1707 unification), a list which begins with Queen Anne. GoodDay 19:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This version of the article only deals with a very small subset of the British monarchs: those who were monarchs of the UK. However the initial intent of this article was to deal with all British monarchs from Roman times onwards and an article to do that already exists. In fact this article used to redirect to it. This article should be merged into that one since it duplicates content. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A new article

message: Aren't the dates on the chart (green bars) off for the period around George III?  Sorry -- just a casual user here.  No idea how to change or properly cite.  In any case, they're not consistent with the George the III articles dates.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.114.47 (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Keeping in mind aswell, monarchs also include the native chiefs of Canada's history. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment That's a good idea, GoodDay. I wish we had more information on First Nations monarchs. --G2bambino (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment The title does not create the position. --G2bambino (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As it's only 5 monarchs shorter than this page, perhaps this one should be merged into British monarchy. --G2bambino (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A list is useful. What is not useful is having two lists, the contents of which overlap precisely. The Canadian list is superfluous, as it contains no info not found here. TharkunColl (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we also have List of Australian monarchs, New Zealand monarchs, Jamaican monarchs? In addition, only one person on the list has officially been King/Queen of Canada, the rest have not held the title.--UpDown (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're all mixed up, UpDown. 1) The title doesn't create the position; there's been a distinct King/Queen of Canada since 1931, though none has been specifically titled as such until 1953. 2) The title doesn't matter, obviously; there's been no "King/Queen of Britain," and certainy none on this list have been. 3) The Canadian list clearly says they're monarchs of Canada, not separately King/Queen of Canada. Just to be clear. --G2bambino (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The title has only been in existant since 1953, so this list should only be since then. This list should be factual and it currently is not. The Britain thing is an invalid argument Britain stand for "United Kingdom", that's fairly apparent. But this discussion is largely irrelevant, a merge to Canadian monarchy is what is needed. --UpDown (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of the page isn't "List of monarchs bearing the title King or Queen of Canada," though, it's "List of Canadian monarchs."--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 19:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, we should only run the list from 1982, if we're being strictly accurate. A "list" with one person on it is no list at all. TharkunColl (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not forget the 'First Nations monarchs', they don't belong at British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And they're not on the Canadian list either. And nor should they be - they were not "monarchs of Canada", but of their own independent states that were later extinguished. TharkunColl (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've a point there Tharky, since the chiefs aren't on this list. Also, UpDown has a point concerning the title King/Queen of Canada - One could argue, Elizabeth II has been the only Canadian monarch. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You shouldn't flip-flop so easily, GoodDay. UpDown's point re. the title of "King/Queen of Canada" is really irrelevant to this discussion, as I outlined in response to him/her. --G2bambino (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, which makes List of Canadian monarchs a pointless and misleading page. I think a merge to Canadian monarchy or History of monarchy in Canada is necessary. --UpDown (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a very reasonable solution. And for those who are interested in the line of succession from earlier times, we could simply have an ordinary link to List of British monarchs. TharkunColl (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed my opinon-vote. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If we get a consensus - I'd redirect it to 'Canadian monarchy', since Elizabeth II is alive. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Do you mean first to be titled "Queen of Canada"? The position existed for decades before the title was created. --G2bambino (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Currently this 'Merge' proposal is deadlocked at 3 to 3, is there a time-limit on it (the proposal)? It appears List of Canadian monarchs is here to stay. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse my math. That's 5 to 3 in favour of Keeping the Canadian list. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So it would appear. But I think a clear consensus favours reducing it to just Elizabeth II. TharkunColl (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that statement is demonstrably false. If you're going to push this, I suggest you get an outside arbitrator to decide on the results of this poll. --G2bambino (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All comments above relating to the issue, except yours, have expressed this opinion. This is a consensus. TharkunColl (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three out of eight is not "all comments." --G2bambino (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said, "All comments above relating to the issue." TharkunColl (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you mean then, is "all comments relating to the issue that are favourable to the outcome I want." Firstly, reducing the list was never an issue. Secondly, three people said they desire it, their reasoning was disputed by two others, thus no decision was reached, let alone a consensus. --G2bambino (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any consensus to reduce the Canadian list, down to Elizabeth II. Besides, the 'Merge' request was not about the Canadian list content. It was about 'merging' two articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I'll have to propose it on the article's own talk page. I'll raise no objection if someone wants to remove the merge templates - no consensus on the merger has been reached, and therefore no change can be made. TharkunColl (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, raise 'list content' at List of Canadian monarchs and remove -Merge tag- as that article is staying put. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Shall I remove the merge tag from this article? GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: The crown of England is the oldest surviving political institution in Europe. In Britain itself, the relationship between monarchy and people created the English national identity and shaped Scotland and Wales. Prof. David Starkey, Monarchy.
:Starkey is considered an english nationalist extremist by many, and has had a motion tabled condeming him in the Scottish Parliament. His programs are aimed at an english populist audience, and are not academic works. I'd hardly call that a good source, any more than the SNP manifesto. http://hnn.us/roundup/archives/14/2004/10/#8090 194.140.65.241 (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Article on Starkey refers to him as a historian, not as a political activist. Since he does have a degree in history, his credentials are in order. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Bad practice to merge without discussion, and totally ignoring history. Michael  Sanders 17:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article must begin at 1707, unless it can be proven that the the UK is actually the Kingdom of England. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's precisely what Starkey's quote demonstrates, namely that it's the same institution. And he amply demonstrates this in his book and TV series, beginning in Anglo-Saxon times and going right up to the present, with the final episode tonight on the Windsors. TharkunColl (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with GoodDay: James I/VI and his immediate successors may have described themselves as 'Kings of Britain', but the two Kingdoms were legally still separate and in existence; 'King of Britain' was at that time just a style, and only made more genuine than that of 'King of France' claimed contemporarily by the fact that at least James did rule Great Britain, if not as one body. Starting at 1707, ending the English and Scottish articles there, and firmly stating that it is the 'Kingdoms' of England and Scotland, rather than the 'countries', which ceased to exist with the Act of Union, keeps things firmly apolitical, and avoids Original Research or agenda. Michael  Sanders 18:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It was a bit difficult not to notice what was going on here.  I've protected this page for 24 hours so that no further moves can be made until there has been some time for discussion. Deb (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: All the more reason to keep the British & English monarch lists seperate. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Watched Starkey's 'Monarchy' last night, about the Hanovers. He faild to mention Frederick, Prince of Wales. Oh well, Poor Fred. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prof. David Starkey on the continuity of the English-British state: 

message: Editors of this rather eyebrowraising article may benefit from reading WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, which are subsections of official Wikipedia policy WP:OR and WP:NPOV. 
In other words: please do not make things up as you go along. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:UNDUEWEIGHT]] 

message: As long as no future monarch takes these names: Kenneth, Donald, Constantine, Aed, Geric, Eochaid, Malcolm, Indulf, Dub, Cuilen, Amlaib, Duncan, Macbeth, Lulach, Edgar, Alexander, David, Margaret, Robert, and James; the numeral scheme of the venerable William of Normandy will remain pristine. More relevantly to the Article, someone could write that all possible names except these would continue in the numbering scheme of England. 
:Sidenote: If any Englishmen are reading this, here is a nice suggestion to keep your numeral scheme regular. You could petition Parliament to declare that future monarchs can't take the names I listed above, which according to my calculations are the only names used more by Scotland than by England. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't be marked "Sidenote" if I had any intention of putting it in the article. It is already an existing fact that all names other than those would continue English numbering. It's not crystal ball gazing. You can calculate that by looking at both lists up until King James VI of Scotland (AKA King James I of England). That's simple math, not fortune telling. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: In summation

message: Perhaps we should split this article into List of monarchs of Great Britain (i.e. Anne to George III) and List of monarchs of the United Kingdom (George III to Elizabeth II). Just a thought. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be unnecessarily confusing - we need to keep the list on one page as much as possible. Ireland, unlike Scotland, was not a sovereign state. TharkunColl (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: That would certainly be an option, but is there really any need? We already have English, Scottish, Irish, Canadian, Australian and probably quite a lot of others as well. TharkunColl (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the name as it is...British covers both GB and UK. Even Canada has had territory changes since being part of the monarchy...as reflected on the page. --Camaeron (t/c) 18:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Split & Rename

message: A current proposal [] would make a split of this article necessary. Feel free to comment everyone! --Cameron* 13:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatcha wanted to split it into? GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Split and rename x2

message: This is clearly incorrect. The reign of Victoria is shown as shorter than Willia the third when in fact it is quite significantly longer. Can someone please try and rectify it.  Nhyty (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that also and checked the markup but everything seems correct. I suppose that the image is not being rendered correctly. Reg4c (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Names are listed to the right of the line, not above. Look at Queens Anne and Elizabeth II. -- Phoenix (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I stopped by to say the same thing. This table is extremely easy to misinterpret. Also, it is too wide to fit inline on my monitor (1366x768). Finally, the color scheme is frankly awful, with the blue text almost illegible on the strongly colored background. I'm not a wikipedian, but that's my two cents.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2C86:5660:1874:1D7C:AC2:B658 (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

text: It's 11 days off, not 21 days, but apart from that you're absolutely right, thanks for spotting it. I have changed it. Richard75 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline Of British Monarchs 

message: This column should be remnoved from the list. It has nothing to do with these persons' status as monarchs and is nothing but trivia. If nobody objects, I will remove it. Surtsicna (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya i support your move. It detracts from the article by cluttering it up.Meatsgains (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children 

message: To keep the illustration homogeneity of this article, the entrance related to H.M. Queen Elizabeth II should have her portrait in coronation robes painted by Sir Herbert James Gunn (which is on display in the Garter Throne Room at Windsor Castle).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.143.131 (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Elizabeth II 

message: The purpose of this article is just to list the monarchs, with some biographical info for each one. It is not a description of the history of the monarchy. Richard75 (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a list 

message: Hello I am suggesting that the photo of Queen Elizabeth be changed to a photo of The Queen on her Coronation day in order to match the others. It seem out of place to have all the other Monarchs photo are a photo of them on their Coronation but The Queen is from at least 5 Years ago. Here is Two photos of the Queen on her coronation Day. 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28853433@N02/7195940572/in/photolist-bXT5qU-bpAccH-caryJY-carynu-9uMUJM-8kYgK4-bXT5sh-carz7d-9fRNQr-dcWeBK-dr9hQh-fpuLLX-fpuMiz-dNYjrA-eLfBm2-eLsH7C-eLgfDx-eLg9vB-eLrMa5-eLsgu5-eLfYG8-eLrWPh-eLrpww-azxvap-eLsByU-eLf8ix-eLrZ7w-eLfU44-eLfETt-eLst5W-eLrG3J-eLse9j-eLfD1t-eLgb7k-eLfqtp-eLs7CJ-eLrJmW-eLrS6u-eLsqWq-eLrrNf-eLrDVG-eLrzjC-eLrBBq-eLf5C6-eLrUuA-eLeYuH-eLsvXy-ajFnBo-9GgaZ2-8aya6b-8aydfh
http://theroyalcorrespondent.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/qeii.jpg
British123royal (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Richard75 (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change photo of Queen Elizabeth  

message: An IP has been blanking the chart, with a claim that it is not rendering correctly. I have made a request at WP:TIMELINE#Request for assistance for someone more knowledgeable about the <timeline> extension to take a look and to assist and/or provide guidance on reviewing the disputed chart. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The end result may be to remove the chart; but the IP had been replacing the chart with argumentative text, which is simply not appropriate either. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

text: The chart looks right to me, it just takes a moment to understand how to read it.  On first glance it looks as though the monarchs are listed above their respective timelins, but they're actually beside it.  Psunshine87 (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If an IP can't be bothered to take two seconds to understand the chart then that's his problem, not ours. Ignore him and he will go away. Richard75 (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, Richard. The chart looks perfectly fine, IMHO. --Sundostund (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeline chart dispute 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on List of British monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130308050901/https://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Symbols/Coatsofarms.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Symbols/Coatsofarms.aspx
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151027054045/https://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensoftheUnitedKingdom/TheHouseofWindsor/GeorgeVI.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensoftheUnitedKingdom/TheHouseofWindsor/GeorgeVI.aspx
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130609145048/http://www.royal.gov.uk/hmthequeen/hmthequeen.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/HMTheQueen.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can someone who knows how please semi-protect this page? Richard75 (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect this page 

message: This article is not improved by deleting the Length of reign column. Richard75 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how making the article less informative is a constructive edit. The fact that the information is available in another article makes no difference. The editor who added this information in August didn't need to establish a consensus first. There is no need for this list to have the same format as the List of English monarchs, but if you insist that the two articles should be the same, then I suggest that you add the same information to the other one, instead of deleting it from this one. Richard75 (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , I'm only interested in consistency. Frankly though, I don't see why it's necessary to include the lengths. I shan't revert, though.--Nevé–selbert 19:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of reign 

message: Shouldn't he be listed in Saxe-Coburg until 1917? As it is he is listed at Windsor (from 1917) with his reign starting 1910. Doesnt make sense, does it. He should have two entries, as he reigned as Saxe-Coburg and Windsor both. EnTerbury (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no point in listing him twice. The article makes the position clear. Richard75 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't think it's helpful to list George V twice just because he changed the name of his royal house. There must be a better way of presenting this information. Richard75 (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the list should be separated in sections at all. The name of the royal house can be indicated in a column. Surtsicna (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  George V's reign 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Right next to the picture of Elizabeth II it says: "" I mean is that ambiguous? Richard75 (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently it is. Richard75 (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  How hard is this to understand? 

message: The age templates are there to automatically calculate the ages and lengths of reigns of each monarch, so we don't have to do it ourselves and sometimes get it wrong. Removing them introduced errors, so I've restored them. It's also necessary to take into account that Britain changed calendars in 1752. (I'm beginning to think we should semi-protect this page now.) Richard75 (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: At 07:08, 05 April 2020, the layout of this page was changed from this layout to this layout. As best as I can tell, this happened because of the discussion on the talk page directly preceding this (titled  Renaming of the Royal House in 1917). The changes in this redesign were: combining all the monarchs into one table and indicating House in a column rather than sections. I had been using this page extensively in late March, and yesterday I was startled to come back to the page and find the new layout. In my opinion, this new layout is much harder to glean information from (due to its more compact nature). It has also lost the short paragraphs summarizing each House. As someone who didn't know about dynastic houses before spending weeks on the page last month, if I had discovered to the page post-redesign I never would have realized their context (and given the fact that they're now only indicated in a column off the left, I might have just ignored that column). And lastly, List of English monarchs and List of Scottish monarchs both follow the old convention; leaving this page the odd one out. (Pages on other monarchies such as List of Danish monarchs, List of French monarchs, List of Spanish monarchs, and several others follow the old convention - List of Russian monarchs was the only page I noticed that didn't separate Houses according to the old convention; likely because sections were already being used to delineate different phases of the evolution of the monarchy.)
To summarize, I'm unsure why a discussion about how to label the renaming of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor resulted in all of the House sections (and their context-giving introductory paragraphs) being deleted altogether; especially when the blurb for the SCG/Windsor house read:
which quite neatly explains why George V had two Houses and why the house name changed to Windsor. I personally would advocate for a return to the old layout, as it nicely separates the somewhat monotonous table, gives context as to what exactly the Hanoverian monarchs were (which I also didn't understand before studying the page last month), gives context and reasoning for House changes in the introduction paragraphs, and follows the convention laid out in the Lists of English/Scottish monarchs.
Additionally, excuse me if I formatted this wrong or if this is the wrong section to post this in, I haven't edited Talk pages much. Teddybearearth (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The list was redesigned because too much emphasis was placed on the houses. They have no constitutional or practical meaning. Dividing the list on that basis is misleading. Surtsicna (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The houses are more relevant in the list of Scottish monarchs than here, because before Robert II's reign the throne went back and forth between houses, and it's hard to make sense of the succession without knowing about the houses. It's much less relevant to the list of English monarchs, but people talk about the Tudor era and the Stuart era, so I suppose it's worth keeping that article the way it is. But it's not really relevant at all after 1714, and while formatting lists in the old way is common on Wikipedia, it's not done anywhere else. It gives disproportionate attention to something trivial. Richard75 (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redesign? 

message: Mostly duplicative Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Support As long as someone is willing to do the hard work of making the merge correctly (adding the correct column to the main article, making it a sortable table, etc.) there's no need for two articles to do the work one can do.  --Jayron32 15:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a bit of a faff though; who can be bothered? Richard75 (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming the OP had already planned to do so; I mean, why even start the discussion if he didn't want to take care of it himself?  --Jayron32 18:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

text: Support Ditto with Jayron32....SethWhales talk 11:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

text: Support although I would think the tables be better remain in separate sections. Aza24 (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Support. Make the longevity table its own section either before or after the "Timeline" section. --Woko Sapien (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose. The page is too cluttered to add lists of this type. Deb (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Support with leaving a redirect. Dr Salvus (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Support This statistical detail is best served by a sortable column in the table; no need to spin it out, especially with such a small article size as this one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  16:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Support don't see why longevity of their life is so notable, the information is mostly covered in the List of British monarchs anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose per Deb ("See also" at the bottom of List of British monarchs compiles all such related lists). Furthermore, a glance at :Category:Lists of political office-holders by age confirms that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — 56 other, as of this writing. Thus, it would seem more intuitive to do a mass nomination of all 56 entries, rather than singling out this one entry, seemingly randomly-chosen for redirect. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Support: a subtopic best discussion as part of the broader topic, the key merge reasons being overlap and context. Keeping as a separate section would be fine. WP:OTHERSTUFF is a weak argument, as that page acknowledges, and my view is that is that we should improve what we can when we can, rather than trying to solve all problems or none. Klbrain (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose: This is an informative list, about the life-span of the British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[List of British monarchs by longevity]] into [[List of British monarchs]] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Possibly create a new article with both a list of English monarchs and also a list of British monarchs. I'm not sure if this will come useful but it's just an idea :D
PolarWafflez5327 (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, very much in favour of this, as it reflects the reality of the continuation of the state. We can call it List of English and British Monarchs, or something like that. TharkunColl (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be very Anglo-centric, given that the Union came about because the king of Scotland inherited the English throne. And it was a continuation of the Scottish state no less than it was a continuation of the English one. Also, we've already debated this at considerable length, in 2007, 2008, and 2011-12. (See Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.) Richard75 (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, the union came about because the English had given the succession to the Hanoverians, and wanted to make sure the Scots did too. It is also incorrect to say that the UK is just as much a continuation of the Scottish state as the English one, given the continuity of institutions from the latter, but not the former. There is also no (serious) English independence movement, which very much indicates where the balance of power in the union is. TharkunColl (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

text: I oppose this proposed merger. The Kingdom of England & the Kingdom of Scotland were separate entities until they merged into one kingdom, in 1707. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with List of English monarchs 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Prince Philip's article says "Just before the wedding, the King granted Philip the style His Royal Highness and created him Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich." We should call him what he was called at the time of the marriage: Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Richard75 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: He was not “Philip, Duke of Edinburgh”. He was Philip Mountbatten, His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh, per his marriage certificate. He was not a prince of Greece and Denmark by that time and he did ‘not’ lose his surname on his wedding day. Any other suggestions would be original research. And the royal titles bestowed upon consorts on their wedding days are excluded. That’s why we have Alexandra of Denmark, Mary of Teck and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, instead of Alexandra, Princess of Wales; Mary, Duchess of York; or Elizabeth, Duchess of York. Keivan.fTalk 20:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the certificate again, it literally says Duke of Edinburgh. So he should be "Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" per Wikipedia's convention as described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Richard75 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. It doesn’t. It has his name and surname as Philip Mountbatten and his rank or profession as HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. I don’t see "Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" anywhere. And WP:NCROY is a guideline for naming articles about royalty and nobility; has nothing to do with how certain pages are linked within other articles. Not to mention that it is not always upheld for naming articles either, because the common, appropriate or accurate name should be determined case by case. Keivan.fTalk 21:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Literally nobody calls him Philip Mountbatten, except here. Why should Wikipedia ignore what everyone else does and be weird? Richard75 (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: According to whom? Did he ever drop his surname? In fact he fought for it to be given to his descendants; and he succeeded (see Mountbatten-Windsor). And yes, he was known as the Duke of Edinburgh, just as "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" was known as the Queen Mother, or Queen Elizabeth or Elizabeth, Duchess of York before that. But we are not choosing titles for main articles here. We are listing consorts with their own names prior to their marriage, not with the titles given to them due to their status as a British royal. That is why in the future, once Charles is king, his wives will be listed as Diana Spencer and Camilla Parker Bowles, because that’s what their own names were near the time of their marriage and before being granted any titles by the monarch. Keivan.fTalk 15:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philip  

message: George IV's first marriage was illegal. I'm not persuaded that this is a good reason to remove it from the article though. It would be more informative to include it with a note about its invalidity. But another editor insists on removing it completely. I think it would be helpful to get the views of others. Richard75 (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the question is: Does it belong here? I would say either we leave out any marriages contracted outside the period of the individual monarchy, or include them all. If the latter, I tend to agree that the Fitzherbert marriage should be included. Deb (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid marriage of George IV 

message: I think it would be useful to have age at death as a separate column as profiled by User:TompaDompa, so that the table can be sorted by lifespan/longevity. DrKay (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a consensus to do this above. I see no disadvantage to doing it. Richard75 (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age at death 

message: I looked again at the recent edits to the age calculation for George III, and I realised that his date of birth was given in the New Style calendar (4 June 1738) even though it was before the 1752 calendar change in England, and even though George II's date of birth was given in this list in the Old Style. That inconsistency (introduced during an edit war in April 2020) had resulted in the wrong date being used for the formula to calculate his age (15 June, being eleven days after 4 June). I have therefore changed George III's birth date to 24 May in the Old Style, and used 4 June (the correct New Style date) for the age calculation. Richard75 (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age and birth of George III 

message: I’m seeing nothing about the choice of a coin for Edward VIII over a portrait. For the sake of consistency, wouldn’t it make sense to use a portrait of him rather than the coin? I’m aware that his coronation never actually took place, but there are certainly many portraits of him out there; shouldn’t one of them be suitable? Am I missing something or should it be changed? Jeeibleh (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I've changed it to a portrait of him when he was Prince of Wales. Richard75 (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the coin for Edward VIII? 

message: See Talk:List_of_English_royal_consorts#Philip_of_Spain_(again).Alekksandr (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philip of Spain 

message: The regnal name of Charles, King of the United Kingdom has not been announced yet. Please make sure to keep the name consistent with the corresponding page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concisepleonasm (talk • contribs) 18:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I added something on this a few minutes ago, but it's at the bottom. Note that he will not necessarily adopt the name "Charles" so even that can't be stated. Pmetzger (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, Clarence House has confirmed the regnal name is to be Charles III. Pmetzger (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Regnal name of The King

message: Just to note: the new king will not necessarily adopt the regnal name Charles III. That's his personal choice and so far as I know has not yet been announced. Pmetzger (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: correct -- referring to His Majesty as Charles III is premature, except the PM just said it on the broadcast DAWGinRoswell 18:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Agreed. While it is likely, it's not official at this point.--KD0710 (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently Clarence House has now confirmed that the king has selected Charles III. Pmetzger (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles III? 

message: I have updated the page with the current King's Royal Coat of Arms. As this has been his Coat of Arms since 1958, it is his current coat without further notice. When more information is released (presumably during or after Operation London Bridge), please update the page to reflect the changed Coat from it's heir-apparent status that of monarch.
When the Coat of Arms changes, it will also be the country's Coat of Arms. It might be good to keep an eye on what other pages have to be changed. Norobase27 (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, to use the current version until further notice. --Sodacan (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just seen that the Coat of Arms has been changed back to the 1837 version. It was reinstated upon the King's accession. I saw it in the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. RicLightning (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @RicLightning - Please provide a reliable source that verifies that the 1837 version was reinstated. You cannot reference Wikipedia as a source. DDMS123 (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The change to the Tudor Crown in the arms was announced by the College of Arms at the same time as the release of the new cypher: https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/news-grants/news/item/205-royal-cypher. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Celia Homeford - That is for the royal cypher, we are talking about the Royal Coat of Arms. DDMS123 (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It says "It is envisaged that the form of the Crown seen in the new cypher will be adopted as the form used in representations of the Royal Arms". DrKay (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Will be." Richard75 (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So? Queen Victoria didn't use a Tudor Crown: 1839, c.1878, 1885, etc. This whole argument over this or that harp and this or that crown is bogus rubbish. DrKay (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That is, "will be" as in "not yet." Richard75 (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Queen Victoria has been dead for over 120 years. There is no "will be" or "not yet". DrKay (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article you quoted is about Charles III. Richard75 (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is talking about the Royal Arms. It says "Royal Arms". The Royal Arms are not the same as the royal cypher. DrKay (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that! It says so right there in the sentence you quoted! Are you being deliberately obtuse? I give up! Richard75 (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of arms 

message: When sorting the table by length of reign, the reign of Charles III (currently 1 day) shows as *longer* than the reign of Edward VIII (327 days). I'm afraid I can't work out what's causing this, but maybe someone who's better than me at tables could fix this?
77.99.140.249 (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. DrKay (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in table (length of reign) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: I think that these make the list look a bit cluttered, and should be removed, sorry! Richard75 (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal cyphers 

message: I'm reverting the edit (incorrectly identified as a "minor edit") that added "House of Mountbatten-Windsor" in the Timeline.  As stated on the royal family website (https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name):  "Unless The Prince of Wales chooses to alter the present decisions when he becomes king, he will continue to be of the House of Windsor...."  -- HLachman (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect editors may be conflating 'name of the House' and 'emergency surname for the untitled".  On which topic, seems slightly inconsistent that a surname is given for the Windsors -- and for Mountbatten-Windsor -- but not for earlier monarchs.  e.g. we don't have "Victoria; Alexandrina Victoria Saxe-Coburg-Gotha; 20 June 1837", etc.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: They didn't use surnames until recently. Richard75 (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: They didn't use surnames recently, either.  There's provision in letters patent for untitled family members to use "Mountbatten-Windsor", but Chuck's never been untitled in his life.  And when titled members have slummed it with a surname, it hasn't necessarily been M-W:  witness Flight Lieutenant Wales and Captain Wales.  And for the earlier "Windsor", even less such provision or use.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  House name 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: New Official Portrait for Charles III is on this website.
Can you please use that portrait? Please. 2601:40A:8400:5A40:1974:CD8E:7D0D:4DE (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: see Talk:Charles III#Profile image update 73.93.5.246 (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2023 

message: On the list of British monarchs since Queen Anne I noticed that Edward VII’s reign is put before George VI Elizabeth II’s Father but Edward VII wasn’t George VI’s Father George V was and George V succeeded Edward VII. -Please Change it J21212121 (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confusing Edward VIII with Edward VII, and Edward VIII does come between his father, George V, and his younger brother, George VI. Edward VII (Elizabeth II's great grandfather) does come before George V.   The current list is 100% correct.  --Jayron32 16:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is George V put before Edward VII 

message: Can someone update Charles III's days reigned? StrawWord298944 (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's automated. DrKay (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles III Days Reigned 

message: Similar to the list of Swedish monarchs article, can someone add each monarch's cypher to their row? StrawWord298944 (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Cypher 

message: Idk if this was discussed but why aren't the monarchs of Wessex, England, and Britain on the same page? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 3 Pages