Talk:List of English monarchs/Archive 1

message: Should "Monarch" be capitalised or not?
The title of the page disagrees with the running text in the page; they should be the same (default to what would normally be used in running text).
-- Toby 06:40 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)
OK, I moved to the lowercase following the running text.
It's easy to move back if that's wrong; please fix the running text in that case as well.
-- Toby 12:17 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
----
Removed all monarchs from 1707. There was no monarch of England after 1707. England ceased to be a kingdom and became a region of Great Britain (1707), then the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801), then the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland (1922). If the article was a List of Monarchs in England it might just about be OK to run the list to the present day, but there simply was no such thing as a Monarch of England after 1707. The full list is where it should be, in the List of British Monarchs, not English ones. ÉÍREman 01:37 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
I have added a list of post-1707 monarchs. Firstly because the various lists of subsequent British monarchs are split between different pages and in obscure places, and also because these people really were kings and queens of England, even if their titles said something different.TharkunColl 14:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

message: She has been added in a footnote as in List of monarchs in Great Britain. Any comments about this leave them here.
Since she was proclaimed queen in a perfectly constitutional manner, there is no legitimate reason to exclude her from the main list. The fact that she was deposed only 9 days later is irrelevant. I have added her to the list with a footnote, along with a number of others who are sometimes excluded for equally dubious reasons.TharkunColl 17:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lady Jane Grey 

message: Thought someone would be interested to know that this list doesn't match the column for monarchs of England on the List_of_British_monarchs page. (The diffrence being that that page contains a reference to Matilda, whilst this page doesn't even contain a footnote mention of her.  Discuss as you wish.  — g026r 18:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting Information 

message: I have removed all regnal numbers prior to William I because they are retrospective and in any case inconsistent, because of the Edwards. The Anglo-Saxons did not use regnal numbers. I have also tidied up some spelling and names.TharkunColl 10:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regnal numbers of pre-Conquest kings 

message: My reasons for putting them back into the list are as follows: (1) - they really were monarchs of England, in addition to other places, and whatever they used as titles (be it noted that from 1604 - not 1707 - the monarchs had called themselves Kings of Great Britain). (2) the British monarchs page is extremely confusing and ill thought out, with its parallel lists and such. (3) people looking for a list of kings of England will probably want the whole list anyway.TharkunColl 13:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is very clear on this subject: articles should do exactly what they say on the tin. If they do not cover everything that needs said, you link to articles that do. This one does link to articles that deal with the issues you raise.--Mais oui! 15:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The article should be redirected to List of British monarchs since it is a complete duplication of that list, although presented significantly worse. Astrotrain 18:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Although the name Great Britain was used after 1603, monarchs styled themselves "King(Queen) of England, Scotland, France and Ireland. If we go by your definition, then the English monarchy died in 1603, and was superceded by the Scottish monarchy. Astrotrain 18:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Look at Style of the British Sovereign, it details all the titles and styles from 1066 until the present day. King/Queen of Great Britain (plus France, Ireland, etc) was not used until 1707. Plus the wording of the Act of Union 1707 saw the demise of both Parliaments in England and Scotland, and the creation of a new Parliament of Great Britain.  Astrotrain 19:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with this totally. England still exists as a political entity with its own constitutional arrangements that differ from the rest of the UK - and indeed, it contains 83 percent of the population of the UK. Whatever legal fictions were invented in 1707 to appease the Scots, there is no doubt that in real terms what happend in that year was the annexation of Scotland by England. The Scottish parliament was dissolved, but the English parliament didn't even interrupt its sitting - all that happened was that a small group of appointed Scottish MPs turned up on 1st May and took their seats. All the English officers of state remained in office, and the English administration was hardly affected at all. If there are no objections in a few days I'll restore the post-1707 list. TharkunColl 14:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-1707 monarchs 

message: I have just renamed this article so as to avoid any ambiguity over which rulers to include. Hopefully this will clear up any need for further debates over nomenclature. TharkunColl 23:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved back. There is already an article on that topic. Work on that one if you like.--Mais oui! 23:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You could use exactly the same argument to justify moving List of monarchs of Scotland to List of monarchs of Scotland and the UK. Morwen - Talk 19:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renamed article 

message: This is addressed to Mais oui!, who seems intent on cutting up this article without bothering to offer any sort of justification. So, at the risk of repeating myself, here are my reasons, yet again, for keeping the article as it stands:
Since England is part of the UK, those people who reigned over the UK since 1707 are, therefore, monarchs of England! How can I state this any clearer? Whatever they happen to use as their title (i.e. Great Britain since 1604) the fact remains that they still reigned over England. Since this is supposed to be a list of monarchs of England, they should and must be included. TharkunColl 00:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you fail to agree with Mais oui!'s reasoning doesn't mean that he hasn't offered any.  Please acknowledge this as a legitimate dispute on his part.  Morwen - Talk 09:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification for the list 

message: This is the same family, and do not constitute separate dynasties. So which name to use? The current one seems best, i.e. Windsor. TharkunColl 12:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saxe-Coburg-Gotha or Windsor? 

message: *Bretwalda's Heptarchy by Bede, 
*followed by Offa of Mercia's England, 
*followed by Tudor's England and Wales, 
*followed by Stuart's Great Britain, 
*followed by Hanover's Great Britain and Ireland, 
*followed by Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 
*followed by Windsor's Commonwealth of Nations...
*we'll probably see Mountbatten-Windsor's Anglosphere, but that's inappropriate to speculate on while the Queen is still alive right now.  68.110.9.62 04:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see where you're trying to go with this, but I think this it is already covered on the page List of monarchs in the British Isles. I have a thing about the words Bretwalda and Heptarchy (and Danelaw, which I'm glad hasn't come up). Neither of them fully convey the institutions of the time. Also, Offa was never king of England. The nearest he got was "Rex Anglorum", and he didn't rule kingdoms such as Wessex, though he was dominant for a while. I think, as I've said above, that this should be a page about the peple who were monarchs of the Kingdom of England. There are pages elsewhere for kings of the other things. Harthacanute 09:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, yes, although Offa is listed there as the first king of the English. Part of the problem lies in that it was more common prior to the 10th century for a king's rule to be over a people, rather than a geographic region - hence Offa is King of the English rather than King of England. West Saxon kings such as Egbert and Aethelwulf are also listed though, and I think it's doubtful whether they would count as kings of England. It's looking increasingly to me that some page on Early English Kings or something might not be out of place - what do people think? There are already lists of kings of the various kingdoms, but no article dealing with how these kingdoms related. Harthacanute 22:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My idea! 

message: There are all sorts of things wrong with using the info from the Crown website, not least copyright issues. But much of what it says is wrong historically, too. Why list Offa then jump straight to Egbert? Offa's successors as kings of Mercia were just as much overlords as Egbert was. Either we start the list with Alfred, as before (whilst also mentioning Offa in the intro), or we list all the overlords. TharkunColl 21:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I'm with TharkunColl on this one. Harthacanute 21:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yet again, 68.110.9.62, I have to question your historical method. Perhaps you could quote a (historical) source that demonstrates that Egbert was king of England? I'm off to the pub - hope the two of you can sort out your differences. Harthacanute 22:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Just one example, from a charter of King Aethelwulf in 855. "In the name of the Triune Deity, I, Aethelwulf, king of the West Saxons and also of the people of Kent...will give to you, Dunn, my thegn, one dwelling...to the south of Rochester." No claims to be king of England or the English there. Harthacanute 22:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: I am sorry i am not too well versed with the topic. But i want to know why are people like Edward VIII mentioned when they were never crowned. You only become a monarch when you are crowned.--nids(♂) 12:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not true. A monarch is proclaimed King (or Queen) upon accession - the coronation may be a year or more later. TharkunColl 12:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. That may be the case of British monarchs. Sorry to have bothered you.--nids(♂) 13:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncrowned and monarchs?