Talk:List of British monarchy records

message: Using a (presumably for the Latin for "years"?) instead of y as the abbreviation for years makes this article far harder to use. I think most people are more used to 'y'. It is the first time I have seen 'a' used as an abbreviation for 'years' - it's not a standard usage. Meerta (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Abbreviation for year

message: Matilda wasn't a pretender to the throne, she was the legitimate Heir and Queen of England.
The throne was disputed, but Matilda had the stronger claim.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.50.223.188 (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Pretenders in Power

message: Was Edward V the youngest British monarch?  What about Margaret, Maid of Norway?  And if you grant the argument that she was never Queen of Scotland because she was never crowned, Edward V was never crowned either. PatGallacher 14:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Youngest Kings and Queens

message: The name of this article is misleading. Along with British monarchs, we've also got English, Scottish & Irish monarchs in the content. GoodDay (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New article title

message: Everything in this article is unsourced.   "The king with the shortest definitively known reign was Edgar the Atheling who ruled for 2 months, 12 days in 1066 before submitting to William the Conqueror. Some records indicate that Sweyn Forkbeard reigned for only 40 days in 1013-4 " is the only line which is cited!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.162.143 (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Demanding "sources" for things like the number of days between two dates or that one defined period is longer than another is simply ridiculous. 12.144.5.2 (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everything in this article is unsourced

message: Mary II is stated to have been the youngest female monarch to give birth (albeit pre accession), however all biographies I have seen of her, including her Wikipedia one, state she did not give birth to a stillborn child but miscarried. Do miscarriages really count as births?Cloptonson (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: i believe they  do so there is nothing wrong with this site  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.126.62 (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.12.144.5.2 (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Mary II pregnancy - miscarriage rather than stillbirth

message: Is anything firm known of the weight of the heaviest monarch, particular contenders being Henry VIII, Queen Anne (who was reportedly buried in a square coffin because of her body's obesity), George IV and Edward VII?Cloptonson (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: George IV was recorded to have reached the weight of 17 stone 7 pounds (245 imperial pounds or 111kg) in 1797, before he became king. Was he heavier in the intervening years?Cloptonson (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Found answer to my own latter question - in the year of his death he was recorded to be weighing 20 stone.Cloptonson (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Found that Henry VIII's recorded weight in last decade of his own life exceeds George IV's record. Figures of 23 to 28 stone have been given, reliable source to be confirmed.Cloptonson (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Record for heaviest?

message: Wouldn't Sophia of Hanover, having died at age 83 while heiress presumptive to Queen Anne, have been the longest lived heir presumptive-not Charles?
:Sophia was never heiress apparent.
:Charles was never heir presumptive.
:Sophia was the oldest-ever heiress presumptive.
:Charles is the oldest-ever heir apparent.
:Had Anne had a child in Sophia's lifetime Sophia would have been displaced...while nothing can displace Charles if he survives.Heirs presumptive are not heirs apparent.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is Longest Lived Heirs Apparent defined? 

message: I think the change of calendar (1752) between Julian and Gregorian need not be mentioned against his tenure as Jacobite-recognised king, because he had ceased to live in Britain, where the changeover happened, after his father fled in 1688. Henceforth he lived in the Catholic countries France and the Italian states, where the Gregorian calendar applied. Correct?Cloptonson (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: James Stuart, the 'Old Pretender'

message: There is a "Note" within the body of this article indicating that the reign of Lady Jane Grey is "disputed." Disputed by whom? The official website of the British Monarchy (royal.gov.uk) includes Jane Grey on its list of monarchs of England. The National Archives at Kew maintains a separate  section, officially identified as "Queen Jane," for the storage of documents associated with her reign. Her name is always included on any list of English, British, and UK monarchs published by HMSO. Therefore and by all accounts, the British government itself recognizes Jane Grey as having been Queen of England for nine days in July 1553. Any "dispute" as to whether or not she was a Queen of England is entirely post hoc and not supported by the official and recognized government of the UK. Discuss (as I know you will! LOL) 01:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Disputed" (?) Reign of Lady Jane Grey 

message: I have added this category of records today, based on monarchs known to me from England, Great Britain and the present United Kingdom.  If either the greatest or smallest age differences mentioned were surpassed by the cases of Scottish or Anglo-Saxon monarchs, you are welcome to declare them, and if necessary correct the number of days over and above a set of complete years.Cloptonson (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the initial entry here is incorrect (George II was older than George III by a day or two more than Edward III was older than Richard II).(Does the reverse age difference between David II and Robert II of Scotland rate mention)--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I had been unaware of Georges II and III's case when I wrote in that relating to Edward III-Richard II. I stand corrected and welcome the correction that has been made. As we are talking differences in age I see nothing wrong in declaring a reverse difference that happens to be greater than one between a dead/abdicating older monarch and a junior successor.Cloptonson (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Age differences, outgoing and succeeding monarchs

message: The ages of the living appear not to be increasing day by day whether the "ayd" or "age in years and days" template are used.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Template not incrementing?

message: Several of the voters in the recent deletion said the article should be pruned rather than deleting it.  With that in mind, anything that is not referenced to a WP:RS with a direct statement that the  monarch in question was the '....est' (fill in the blank) is subject to removal.  Cite it or be prepared to lose it. Agricolae (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Demanding cites for arithmetical absolutes is ludicrous.12.144.5.2 (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Demanding cites to show that a particular record is noteworthy, and not just the personal whim and Original Research of the editor who put it there, is not ludicrous, it is policy. Agricolae (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving aside the issue of how much respect particular policies actually deserve,how is noteworthiness objectively measured?...what anoints some particular other author's personal whim above that of a contributor here,or makes their original research worthier?12.144.5.2 (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Deserve has nothing to do with it.  Policy is policy.  What 'anoints' a published author's whim is the fact that they have been published, and hence an editor, one of whose jobs it is to balance the author's whims with the publisher's desire to optimize resources, agreed that the item was interesting enough to merit inclusion.  What makes their original research worthier is that Wikipedia has core policies that treat the Original Research of sources differently than the Original Research of Wikipedia editors.  Specifically, WP:NOR forbids Wikipedia editors from doing Original Research, while WP:V (and WP:RS) not only do not bar the use of reliable sources that have done Original Research (or are secondarily derived from sources doing Original Research), they mandate that such sources be used.  So, absolutely prohibited vs mandated tends to make the latter worthier. Agricolae (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad policies need to be disrespected!Anything that is not original research is mere vomit.12.144.5.2 (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't like the rules of Wikipedia, the internet is a large place and you can host a page where you get to decide what the policies are. Agricolae (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have occasionally mused on doing a wiki that forks every one of the hundreds or thousands of articles here I have contributed to redone to meet my criteria.12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agricolae, do you see any reason why this IP user should not be blocked as a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked User:LE? Surtsicna (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember LE so I can't judge the merits, and a checkuser can't be done on an IP, but if this is a WP:DUCK, so be it - I am not a fan of having to waste time discussing with block evaders. Agricolae (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the user who argued that original research "should be highly praised and sought after as nothing else gives any article independent value" during the deletion discussion, which got him or her blocked indefinitely. Surtsicna (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that sounds familiar. Agricolae (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

text: How quickly we (or at least I) forget.  Went back and read the record.  Heard quacking. Agricolae (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

text: My use of this IP address (of which I have had sole control since 2000) goes back further than you seem to think.12.144.5.2 (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prune 

message: Despite popular conception, Henry VIII didn't divorce Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves; he annulled his marriage with them. This retroactively made his marriages to them illegal, and, in the eyes of the law and the church, they were never married. The section on 'number of wives' should be changed to reflect this more accurate reading of history... or maybe it shouldn't! I'm no expert wikipedian, so I came to ask whether or not it should be changed. So, should it? 2001:8003:EC14:A901:B51E:10E5:25D5:456B (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The best thing about Wikipedia is how you can edit that information in, with sources (use the cite function), so you can show that the general belief is 8 though the legal status is fewer. I'll try to help if I can doktorb wordsdeeds 12:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry VIII technically only had 4 wives