Talk:List of British monarchs

A new article

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)

They should be merged, I agree. (said an anonymous correspondent)

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)

Merge

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)

This comment is 2 years old and the chart still shows Queen Victoria with a 7 year reign. I could try to fix it myself but I don't feel qualified to edit the code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.80.27.56 (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed that List of Canadian monarchs be merged into this article (i.e., changed into a simple redirect), because it covers precisely the same ground, yet has less detail. TharkunColl (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
*Oppose There's is such a thing as Canadian monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Keeping in mind aswell, monarchs also include the native chiefs of Canada's history. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

*Accept Who just happen to be identical to the British ones. The article is completely superfluous. TharkunColl (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Illustrates the concept of personal union very well. Mayalld (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose There is parallel, but the jurisdiction, context, and history is different; I don't see how that could be covered in this list. --G2bambino (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose --Ibagli rnbs (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Canadian monarchy/History of monarchy in Canada - This short page is complety unnecessary as all they information is or can be easily at Canadian monarchy and History of monarchy in Canada. UpDown (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Canadian monarchy/History of monarchy in Canada - Since there's no 'First Nations' monarchs on this list & the fact that Victoria to George VI didn't use the title King/Queen of Canada. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

• Merge to Canadian monarchy/History of monarchy in Canada (with a simple link from that page to List of British monarchs). TharkunColl (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Let's not forget the 'First Nations monarchs', they don't belong at British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've changed my opinon-vote. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So basically, we turn List of Canadian monarchs into a redirect to either Canadian monarchy, or History of monarchy in Canada? Which of those two is best? TharkunColl (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Keep and Expand as there was a Province of Canada, Canada East. Canada West, and Canada (New France) before the Dominion existed. And at the least, the New France part would not even partially duplicate the British monarchs list. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The monarchs of those places are nothing to do with Canada. We weren't even allowed to put English and British monarchs on the same list. TharkunColl (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose But make clear on the Canada list that Lizzy was the first Queen of Canada perhaps splitting the table ? --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 04:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Since Elizabeth II is the first King or Queen of Canada, then no others should appear on that page. Please see the lengthy discussions at List of English monarchs and List of British monarchs as to whether two different pages were needed. TharkunColl (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Excuse my math. That's 5 to 3 in favour of Keeping the Canadian list. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Three out of eight is not "all comments." --G2bambino (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I said, "All comments above relating to the issue." TharkunColl (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Prof. David Starkey on the continuity of the English-British state:

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)

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)

I have therefore re-included the post 1707 monarchs in List of English monarchs and redirected this page there. TharkunColl (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad practice to merge without discussion, and totally ignoring history. Michael Sanders 17:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The crown of England is the oldest surviving political institution in Europe. Well sorry to keep banging on about it but the crown of England disappeared in 1707. The crowns of Denmark and Sweden both became political entities about the same time as England but unlike England continue to produce kings and queens.

In Britain itself, the relationship between monarchy and people created the English national identity and shaped Scotland and Wales.

I find that hard to swallow, and so it seems did Starkey in 2004 when he wrote:

Scotland, on the other hand, and to a lesser extent Wales, having kept their cultural nationalism going, have reclaimed powerful elements of their political identity and have started to develop absolutely standard European nationalisms, like those of France or Spain. All of which leaves England looking very odd: the country that dare not speak its name.

Bill Reid | Talk 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Bear in mind that Starkey's TV series was written for public appeal. It is not a scholarly piece. We cannot verify sources it uses as if it were an academic work.--Gazzster (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

I watched the one about Charles II last night (we're behind in Australia). Didn't even mention his persecution of the republican leaders. He manipulated the law to do it. But he did talk about his absolutist tendencies.--Gazzster (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

English officers of state continuing as British ones after 1707

The following are examples of English offices/officers whose jurisdictions were England before 1 May 1707, and Great Britain thereafter:

• Henry Boyle, Chancellor of the Exchequer 1701-1708 (office created 1316).
• Charles Spencer, Southern Secretary 1706-1710 (office created 1660, renamed Home Secretary 1782).
• Robert Harley, Northern Secretary 1704-1708 (office created 1660, renamed Foreign Secretary 1782).
• William Cowper, Lord Chancellor (acting) 1705-1708 (office created 1068).
• Thomas Herbet, Lord President of the Council 1702-1708 (office created 1530).
• John Holles, Lord Privy Seal 1705-1711 (office created 1307).
• John Churchill, Master-General of Ordnance 1702-1712 (office created 1544).
• Thomas Grey, President of the Board of Trade 1705-1711 (office created 1672).
• Sidney Godolphin, First Lord of the Treasury 1702-1710 (office created 1126 as Lord High Treasurer, and effectively became that of Prime Minister 1721).

There are many, many other examples, and I have only listed the really important offices (and that still exist today). In all cases these were English offices that extended their jurisdiction to the whole of Britain in 1707. There is not a single example of an English officer vacating his post in 1707, or the post itself being abolished. Conversely, it goes without saying that no Scottish governmental office, or officer, saw his jurisdiction expand to include the whole of Britain. Indeed most found themselves pensioned off (i.e. bribed). TharkunColl (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean to demonstrate, Tharky? That the Kingdom of England continued after 1707?--Gazzster (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I originally compiled that list to show that the English kingdom became the British kingdom. There is a continuity of statehood from England to Great Britain that was simply not the case for Scotland. The apparatus of the Scotish state was dismantled, whereas the apparatus of the English state expanded to encompass Great Britain. TharkunColl (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree.--Gazzster (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I compiled it as part of the debate over List of English monarchs. I, and others, wanted that list to continue to the present (and for the page to be retitled "List of English and British monarchs") because that is how the information is presented in pretty much every single reference source and because it acknowledges the essential continuity of the state. TharkunColl (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

State offices? Yes. Monarchies? No. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's worth another try.--Gazzster (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. I hope it doesn't get politicised again. TharkunColl (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before Tharky. If you can get a consensus for such a 'merger', I won't dispute it. I don't own those two articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly think it needs debating again. TharkunColl (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge monarch lists

It's been suggested here, that this article & List of English monarchs be merged as List of English and British monarchs. That wouldn't be a good idea, as it would create IMHO, the inaccurate idea that the English monarchy became the British monarchy, rather then becoming extinct like the Scottish (and later) Irish monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And that's the whole point of course, because the English monarchy and state did not become extinct - they indeed became the British monarchy and state. There is an essential continuity that is undeniable, and the splitting of the lists obscures this fact. TharkunColl (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed my mind on this one. The continuity is undeniable. 1707 was basically about a change of name and getting rid of a potential threat to England.--Gazzster (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet, the continuity of the Scottish monarchy is also undeniable; that's what happens when two lines merge into one. It's useless to claim the Scottish monarchy died out while the English one continued and took Scotland over. --G2bambino (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

With regard to your re-insertion of the fact tag, G2 - firstly the formatting seems a bit off - but more importantly can you name any Scottish office of state the jurisdiction of which expanded to include the whole of Great Britain in 1707? That was the import of the statement - English governmental departments, i.e. all the things that make up a state, expanded their jurisdiction to the whole of Great Britain in 1707. No Scottish ones did. TharkunColl (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a strange way to word your question. It isn't a matter of any Scottish office expanding to include all of the United Kingdom, it's about English offices doing so. There's a slew of Scottish offices of state that were not abolished or superceeded by English offices after the Act of Union. --G2bambino (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It is about English offices expanding to include Great Britain, because that's exactly what they did - offices make up a state, therefore the English state expanded to include Great Britain. Governmental Scottish offices were simply abolished, as your link explains. Some ceremonial ones survived - ones without power, which were in any case confined to Scotland and did not expand to Great Britain. Can you not appreciate the difference? Do you believe the events of 1707 were a merger of equals, or a takeover by one state of another? TharkunColl (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's about whether or not every single English office expanded to kill every singlge Scottish office. The answer is, emphatically: no. --G2bambino (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't about that. It's about the English offices expanding their jurisdiction to Scotland, which they did. The reverse is emphatically not the case. TharkunColl (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is, as what I said is exactly what you're trying to imply. Some English offices may have expanded to take in the entire United Kingdom. But, so what? None of it affirms that the English monarchy occupied some void left in Scotland when the Scottish monarchy inexplicably just... died. It was a merger of crowns into a personal union; pure and simple. --G2bambino (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Wikipedia: WikiProject United Kingdom of this current discussion & invited all opinons. PS - If you guys want to notify other related WikiProjects (concerning the discussion), please do. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: My apologies to all - The English, Scottish & Irish monarchies didn't become extinct, rather they merged to become the British/UK monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the problem here is that it is difficult to find a reliable source that states it plainly one way or another. The reason for this is (I would contend) that the powers that be wished to make the exact legal status somewhat unclear, so that each person could form a differeny view as suited their slant on the matter. Nothing has changed in 300 years of union.

It is noticable that there are two distinct views expressed;

1. Scotland was subsumed by England and the enlarged state took the name "Britain"
2. Scotland and England both cease to exist, and came together as parts of a new entity called "Britain"

Clearly, the second version plays better north of the border, and the first south of the border!

It is interesting that the third logical view (England subsumed by Scotland) doesn't emerge. As such, the range of views to be reconciled does not encompass the whole spectrum. Merely the half from equal partners to dominant England.

With such a dearth of hard evidence, it is near impossible to avoid WP:POV, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, however, in cases where an answer is needed and no reliable source can give one, such breaches must occur. It is my contention that the Kingdom of Britain ought to be regarded as a restyled and expanded Kingdom of England. Not from any nationalist passion (I really don't care that much!), but from putting together the evidence;

• Earlier mergers The earlier creation of the Kingdom of Scotland out of the Kingdom of the Picts, and the Kingdom of England out of the Kingdom of Wessex. In each case a dominant kingdom absorbed others, and adopted a new wider title. Yet the succession is accepted.
• Continuity The Acts of Union run to a common theme, namely that whatever happens now in England is the way of things in Britain. There are certain savings to retain some Scottish institutions within Scotland, but in general, England continues to be governed as before, and Scotland falls in line.
• Succession The Acts specifically adopt the English succession to the throne.
• Great Seal The Acts specify that there shall be a new Great Seal of Britain, but that the Great Seal of England shall be the Great seal of Britain pro tem. They further specify that there shall continue to be a Great Seal of Scotland to seal purely Scottish documents, but contain no such provision for a continuing Great Seal of England.

It is this last point which provides the subtle proof that Britain is a continuation of England. Mayalld (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A balanced comment and well put.--Gazzster (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think someone is being rather selective about their history! Was it, or was it not James VI of Scots who attempted the first union of Scotland and England? And was it not Queen Anne, of the Royal House of Stewart who merged the kingdoms in the Acts of Union in 1707 to make a kingdom of Great Britain? And do not the current monarchs only hold their position on account of them being the closest non-catholic relatives to the House of Stewart? The current royal family even considered adopting Stuart as a royal house in 1917! --Camaeron (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And I think someone is being rather ignorant about their history. The reason for the union of 1707 was to make sure the Scots complied with the English decision to exclude the Stuarts and accept the Hanoverian succession. If you believe the Stuarts were behind it then you have been told a version of history that is almost the exact opposite of what happened. And so what if the Hanoverians are descended from the Stuarts? The Stuarts only had a claim to the English throne on account of them being descended from the Tudors. And the decision of 1917 notably did not choose Stuart as the new royal name. TharkunColl (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to inform, not to offend. Currently, it's 7-2 against a merger. Just curious, how long shall we keep this going? GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it will happen - too many people with political axes to grind. Might as well close the vote now if you want. TharkunColl (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What does everyone else think? Shall we close? (PS: How do we close it?). GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Leave it for a while. A requested move would run at least a week, often more as backlogs there are common. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well, a week is reasonable. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And of course the house of Tudor was completely English! Theres just the slight problem of them being ever so slightly WELSH! --Camaeron (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance strikes again. Elizabeth I, a Tudor, had an English mother and a father who had... an English mother. Oh, and his father too, etc. So yes, I agree with you. The Tudors really were ever so slightly Welsh. Please go and read the concrete elephant speech by Elizabeth I, and you'll see which country she identified with. TharkunColl (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course she identifies with England. She had lived here all her life after all. However fact remains that Tudor is a welsh royal house. BTW Why isnt there a wikipedia page on noble dynasties? Hasnt anyone here heard of noble houses? There is a large page on royal houses! --Camaeron (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just an update folks, it's currently 9-2 against a merger. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been (over) a week now. There's obviously no consensus to merge. Can somebody close this thing (put it in a colored box)? GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Make that 10-2 against a merger. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody removed the template... I suppose I ought to be instead of chatting here...just wanted to make sure everyone's in agreement really--Camaeron (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yay or Nay (to merger of lists)

• Yay TharkunColl (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Nay GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Yay--Gazzster (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Nay --G2bambino (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Nay --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• No - emphatically —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billreid (talk • contribs) 19:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Nay -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• No as they are two different things Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Can we please try and get some people who aren't Scottish voting here please? It's precisely this politicisation of the article that has caused the present distortion in the first place. TharkunColl (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read official Wikipedia policy WP:NPA. In particular please note:

"... some types of comments are never acceptable: ...political, ethnic, or other epithets directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."

The nationality or ethnicity, or political preferences, of your fellow Wikipedia editors is utterly irrelevant.

I would strongly argue that it is in fact you who is trying desperately to politicise this and related articles.

Please also read official Wikipedia policies: WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.--Mais oui! (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not suggest that Scots should not be allowed to vote. I merely suggested it would be better, that is more balanced, if others did as well - or at least in greater numbers than they have so far. If anything, I was bemoaning English apathy - which I'm allowed to do since I am English. TharkunColl (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My vote is not because I'm Scottish (what does nationality have to do with merging these lists), it is to maintain an encyclopedia and not to promote fiction as fact. Bill Reid | Talk 09:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I imagine it's because Thark can't believe that nobody else here sees the world from his Anglo-centric point of view. --G2bambino (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Nay Complete rubbish see entry in the above section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camaeron (talk • contribs) 18:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's rather more that some people have an anti-English agenda which causes them to distort history for nationalistic reasons. TharkunColl (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not good to make assumptions, that editors have hidden agendas. In fact it's impossible to prove such assumptions on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just come across this discussion - of course I vote No as well. If anything, a more logical proposal would be to merge the list of British monorchs with the List of Scottish monarchs, though I would oppose that as well. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To even suggest that the proposal to merge the Scottish and British lists is "more logical" shows a complete disregard of history. The union of 1707 was brought about by the English so that they could get rid of the Stuarts - not only from England but from Scotland as well. TharkunColl (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, to get rid of the Catholic Stuarts. I don't think anyone denies that the union was motivated by the paranoia of England. And I don't think anyone could seriously deny the 'union' was in effect an English takeover. Legally it was a union of crowns. Effectively it was a takeover (Btw, my ancestors are Scottish and I believe Scotland was unjustly conquered). --Gazzster (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Extremely strong nay--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Blatantly obvious no - at the first I thought the proposal was just a joke or the tag was added by mistake. The two are not the same thing. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A question for Barrybob

Since you have just voted without leaving a comment, I would like to ask your reason. Your user page states that you support Scottish independence. From what? If the events of 1707 were a merger of equals, why do so many Scots feel hard done by? TharkunColl (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to answer for him, but its probably the dominance of English culture and politics within the culture of the United Kingdom. The English account for 83% of the British population remember. The two kingdoms were also embattled for centuries prior to the union. I don't think Braveheart helped either! -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The events in 1707 where not a merger of equals the English wanted protection from a potential French invasion from the north and Scottish establishment needed English gold to pay off the darien disaster, saying that it was not the simple renaming of the English state as you like to put it Scotland retained it own legal system ect. Now with regards to independance like the vast majority of the Scottish population I say I am Scottish not British my national identity is Scottish I belive Scotland would be better running all of its own affairs. PS braveheart didn't really have any affect on my views. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

-- Not forgetting the union was helped along because of the Union of Crowns and the Protestant Reformation of course ;) -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

With due respect to Mel Gibson? The movie Braveheart has alot of inaccuracies in it. Edward III, illegitimate son of William Wallace? Not unless they could preserve sperm in the 1300's. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Both Jz and Barry have made comments to the effect that they agree with the proposition that the union was English driven and English dominated. They should, in all logic, therefore agree with the proposed merger. And yet they vote against it. Can we really say that politics has not been a factor here? TharkunColl (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of my comments above (i.e. Braveheart) were intended to be a little tongue-in-cheek, but I guess it's hard to tell from text alone. I oppose the merger because I happen to believe this would be the wrong way forwards for the list. Barry and I have opposing perspectives on several issues (I'm British not Scottish like the majority :)!) but I think we can both put politics aside and see this proposal is not a merger that lists the monarchs of England, Scotland and Britain effectively. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In 1620 the Kingdom of France merged with the Kingdom of Navarre. Yet we do not break the list of French monarchs there. Why not? TharkunColl (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine it is due to a consensus between editors. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And that is precisely the trouble. A group of Scottish editors always strike down any suggestion of this nature. And yet they also appear to be Scottish nationalists. You can't have it both ways. Either the English took over Scotland and the Scots want independence, or not. Why must these issues always be politicised? Why must every opportunity be taken to denigrate the English, even if it means self-contradiction? TharkunColl (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The supporters of union in 1707 are long dead in 2008. The supporters of independence in 2008 weren't born in 1707. We can go further. It is not necessary that someone who supports independence now should believe that union then was undesirable. The question here is not one of logic, or even of fact, but simply one of presentation. Is it necessary or desirable to duplicate a list across multiple articles? It is not necessary, as we can see, because it is not duplicated now. Whether it is desirable to do so is a matter of judgement. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Navarre merged into the french state the same did not happen with Scotland, and since when has Jza84 been a Scottish nationalist ? --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 00:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to anyone in particular. If the hat fits, and all that. And, given everything I've said above about government departments, in what way were the events of 1707 not a takover of Scotland by England? TharkunColl (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This article used to be a list of all the monarchs and monarchies associated with Britain back to Roman times. It was not originally intended to be a list of monarchs who ruled the UK. A decision was taken a few years ago to rename it as List of monarchs in the British Isles, so this article became a redirect. The redirect was then replaced by this "Monarchs of the UK" text. In my opinion the best plan would be to move this text to Monarchs of the UK, or something similar, and move the original article back to this title. There would then be no need for a merger of anything. Since all British monarchs would be included, whatever state they might happen to have ruled. Also in its favour, the original article gave a much clearer picture of the evolution of the various monarchies to the present one via its "timeline" layout. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The best approach would be to rename this article List of monarchs of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, which is what it is, and to take List of monarchs in the British Isles out and shoot it, or split it into two, a Lists of monarchs in Britain and Ireland and a Synchronism of English and Scottish monarchs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You know something, people? If these articles get merged, we'll have to merge all articles relating to United Kingdom & England. In fact, for starters? we'd have to merge United Kingdom & England. Basically these articles are all related & interlocked with each other. You merge here? you merge there. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is the case at all. This is a step too far in extrapolating to a conclusion. It is sensible to separate out narrative articles, whilst lists can be usefully combined. Mayalld (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, though, they can't.

More to the point: I think what GoodDay meant to do, in a slightly facetious way (though nothing wrong with that), was highlight the motive that may lie behind the desire to merge the lists; i.e. it stems from a particular personal view that the state of Scotland ceased to exist and the entire island of Great Britain became England, only named the United Kingdom so as not to tip off the obviously ignorant Scots. If the lists were merged it would become easier to come to such a conclusion. --G2bambino (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not that the Scots were "ignorant" (as you state in your straw man argument), rather that they needed to be given something to save face. This the English were prepared to give them. Both sides knew what was really happening - hence the famous story about the song "Why am I so sad on my wedding night" being rung out in Edinburgh on the day the small group of selected Scottish MPs took their seats at Westminster (they didn't even bother holding a new general election, by the way, for the new "state" - and the English triennial act kicked in on schedule). TharkunColl (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I alwasy come back to the fact, the UK Parliament has MPs from Scotland & England (aswell as Wales & Northern Ireland). If they only had MPs from England, you might've convinced me Tharky. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A state will have representatives from all its areas. They meet at Westminster, which has been the seat of the parliament (and its predecessors) of this state since the reign of Edward the Confessor. No English person regards themselves as living in a different state from that of the middle ages - no matter how many lies and half-truths Wikipedia promotes. TharkunColl (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced, that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is actually an enlarged Kingdom of England in disguise. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

HELP does anybody know how to close this Merge request? Their was 'no consensus' to merge. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT

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)

Regnal numbering

Why has someone put a fact tag on the statement that regnal numbering of monarchs follows on from England? Don't they think that readers might be a little surprised at reading the list and coming to a William "IV" or Edwards "VII" and "VIII", or even Elizabeth "II"? We must not assume they know the background and so must explain what is at first sight nonsensical (nonsensical, that is, if we really are talking about different states). TharkunColl (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hadn't bothered to read that piece of text before but its wrong. It was agreed at the accession of Elizabeth II to adopt in future whatever numeral in the English or Scottish line was the higher. So if a monarch called David came to the throne then he would be called David III. Also propose that the opening piece England and Scotland entered into legislative and governmental union on 1 May 1707 be replaced by England and Scotland entered into political union on 1 May 1707, yes? Bill Reid | Talk 09:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've clarified it, and linked to the more detailed article. The 1953 convention was convenient in that whilst it was new, it actually fitted to the previous practice (no monarch who would have borne a higher number from Scots precedence has reigned since the union. Mayalld (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's fair, though I've removed a bit of crystal ball gazing. TharkunColl (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I got a little carried away with that! I thought an example would be useful, and my first thought was of a potential James VIII, but noticed that there are a number of previously exclusively Scots names in the top 20 Mayalld (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And in any case, there is no reason to assume he will take his given name as his regnal name. Edward VIII's given name, ironically enough, was David, for example. TharkunColl (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Edward VIII's given (first) name was Edward, (see his article). GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, and I've reduced it to a more abstract statement. Whilst is is unlikelt that James Windsor will ever reign, it is entirely believable that some future monarch would be King James for example Mayalld (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't believe the British monarchy will ever choose a name from the Scottish succession that will give them a higher number than the English one. That, of course, is just my opinion. TharkunColl (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That may well be true. On the other hand, having James VIII (or even a prospective James VIII) would be an astute move for the Windsors. As Scottish Nationalism gains ground, and the SNP campaigns for independence, full separation of the parliaments (whilst a distant prospect) looms on the horizons. Were that to happen, the position of Scotland would likely be the same of the position of the dominions, namely the division of the crown into a separate English and Scottish Crown in personal union, and the possibility of the Scots declaring a republic. By choosing a Scottish name for a future heir, they would improve their chances of retaining their hold. Mayalld (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I suspect the Scots would see it for what it was. That brings up another point though. Would an independent Scotland with the British monarch with its head of state re-introduce its own numbering, or follow British numbering like the dominions? TharkunColl (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Intriguing possibilty. I wonder if London would ever allow Scottish independence? As before 1707, England might be wary of an independent neighbour that could challenge its interests. In these times I doubt dominion status would be treated as a serious option. More likely Scotland will go republic.--Gazzster (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Even Margaret Thatcher stated that if a majority of Scots want independence they can have it, and that is no doubt the official British stance. Thing is though, say a referendum was held and they voted for independence, would there be any provision for changing their minds later when they discover just how expensive it is running a country with such a small population base? They have been subsidised by England ever since the union and probably long before. TharkunColl (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Scotland's economic problems stem from the decline of its heavy industries: not from the size of its population.--2.31.195.244 (talk) _{Undated comment left on 31 August 2021}

The British Government provided very few public services in the 18th and 19th Centuries. What little there were were funded more locally. So there was not much opportunity for England to subsidise Scotland, Wales or Ireland until the 20th Century. 31.124.190.202 (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I suppose Scotland and England would negotiate an economic treaty. And they would probably join the Eu pretty smartly.--Gazzster (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Another point is this - any independent Scotland should also take Northern Ireland, since the Protestant majority there are largely of Scottish descent. A glance at a map will show the logic of this. Why should England be lumbered with it? TharkunColl (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but why should Scotland be lumbered with it? England created the problem of NI. It should fix it.--Gazzster (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Scotland should take it because the Protestants there are of Scottish descent, and identify with Scotland. I'm not really sure its true to say that England created the problem of NI. I think that was Germany in WW1 who subsidised Irish rebels. Prior to the war a federal solution for England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales had been proposed, but the outbreak of war saw it shelved and the Germans then fomented Irish rebellion. TharkunColl (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its not all that clear cut, is it? I think we better leave NI alone and stick to the Land of the Thistle.--Gazzster (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Truly this is interesting, but aren't we getting away from the topic? article merging? GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Protestant population was brought to Northern Ireland by the Plantation of Ulster: organised by King James I of Ireland, who was also James I of England and James VI of Scotland. The 'problem', if one wishes to call it that, is a lot older than the Easter Rising. 2.31.195.244 (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe Mayalid's last post puts the matter in perspective.--Gazzster (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We'll find out when a 'Scottish name' comes to the British Throne. Interesting discussion though. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

to GoodDay; Whilst this page is for discussing a possible merger, it is also for discussing any other matters pertaining to the page, and the extent to which we delve into regnal numbering on the page is very pertinent to this talk page. Mayalld (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why discuss a possible future event? GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We may have digressed a little. A pardonable offence. --Gazzster (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I was just suggesting things were getting off track. I've no authority to end it. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, and thanks for the friendly response on my talk. My comment above may have seemed a little terse, although it wasn't intended that way. I actually think this little diversion has been useful. It has resulted in (IMHO) improvements to the article refined by consensus, when the whole thing was in danger of becoming bogged down in an endless argument between two camps. Perhaps we should keep in mind that whichever side "wins" in the long run, it doesn't matter half as much as getting good solid content into whichever articles we have on this subject.

I happen to think that the "correct" way to do it is to regard GB as a continuation of the English state, but if the consensus runs against me on this, then I accept it, and move on to improve the article(s). Mayalld (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Just to extend the above a little more (sorry)... it was the House of Stuart that wanted a unitary Kingdom of Great Britain. James VI/I styled himself King of Great Britain. My point? I wonder how the Royal Family feel about Scottish nationalism today and if they'd even step in with their Royal Prerogative on the issue (as a block?). Perhaps there's something about this somewhere? -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Stuart proposal was rejected. The actual union came about when the English parliament decided to exclude the Stuarts from the succession, and in order to get the Scots to agree annexed them. The entire 17th century can be seen as a battle between the English and the Stuart monarchy, which they hated. TharkunColl (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The English did not want the situation where the Scots had a separate monarch with potential hostile intentions, so the Kingdom of England bullied and bought the Scottish Kingdom it was never annexed. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 01:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So you admit, at least, that the union was English driven and that the Scots were effectively forced into it? So why vote against my proposal above? TharkunColl (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Cromwell effectively annexed Scotland for a short time I believe (I never was much of a republican). Also, I understood that elected Scotsmen of worth and intelligence negotiated a treaty of peace and economic benefit for Scotland in 1707. Good for them, it brought alot of wealth and prosperity. I dread to think what would've happened if they'd gone down the Auld Alliance route. I jest of course. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to Jza regarding Royal Family and Scot Nats. I believe that Alex Salmond has stated on several occasions that the Scot Nats are not a republican party and that if Scotland ever achieves independence, it will still have the monarch of the day as its head of state. I understand that Salmond and Prince Charles are quite chummy:0) Bill Reid | Talk 09:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Will they set up a Governor General (or equivalent) like in the dominions, or will they have direct monarchical involvement as currently the case for the UK, with the monarch flying back and forth between London and Edinburgh, I wonder? When James moved to England in 1603, did he appoint a regent or other representative to govern Scotland in his absence? I assume he must have. TharkunColl (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know, but assume that Scotland would be a Commonwealth Realm - probably along the lines of the Canadian model. As for James, he ruled directly through his Edinburgh privy council, sending his instructions by letter. The Scottish ruling classes came to him rather than the other way round but because there was so many taking the high road to London, the English complained and James had to ban them and then only those with his passport were allowed back! Bill Reid | Talk 14:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Answer to TharkunColl Because it was a brand new kingdom being created, some of the Scottish offices remained there was no new Lord President of the Court of Session appointed does this mean the Scottish state still existed ? as for the Queens role in Scotland I very much doubt there would be governor general appointed seeing as it would be recreation of the Kingdom of Scotland and given the ammount of time she already spends here it would just be silly. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Some Scottish offices of state continued, certainly - but the point I was making was that English offices were expanding to include Scotland, whereas no Scottish offices that survived had their jurisdictions expanded to include England. Did the Scottish state survive? Some of it did, especially, for example, those parts of it connected with the judiciary. But those parts that survived became part of a regional authority. In marked contrast, every single aspect of the English state survived, and saw its jurisdiction expand to include Scotland. Is it not obvious that there is quite a big difference? TharkunColl (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a scary argument if you use it in a modern context replacing Scotland with the UK and England with the EU... -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither an English or Scottish state survived that is exactly the point. IMHO some of the above comments are bordering on anti-scottish. Some of the comments seem to suggest Scotland is in some way inferior to England. Why do people always want to compare the two? Britain is a great nation. England has achieved a lot but so has Scotland, especially considering their tiny population! --Camaeron (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. The facts of the Union clearly demonstrate that the Scottish State ceased to exist, being merged into a renamed English State. Clearly, however, that view of things (no matter how well sourced) doesn't sit well with Scots who see it as a slur on their nation. We are faced with a conundrum. Do we go with what the facts, on dispassionate evaluation, tell us about the matter, or do we bow to the pressure as claims of anti-Scottish bias are made? I don't favour trying to rewrite history to suit a particular POV. It isn't anti-Scottish or suggesting that Scotland is inferior. It is simply dealing with the fact that in 1707 there was an unequal union in which the English State evolved into the British State.

This question will be resolved by looking at where the facts lead us. It will never be solved by playing the "anti-Scottish" card. Mayalld (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Kingdom of England & the Kingdom of Scotland merged to become the Kingdom of Great Britain (which later evolved to become the United Kingdom). Those are the facts. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And the facts also clearly show that it was the English state that expanded to subsume the Scottish. TharkunColl (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Both facts are true: the two states merged and the English state gobbled up the Scottish. --Gazzster (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced. But again, if a consensus for merge is reached, I won't revert it. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I accept your facts above, but I don't believe that they are all the facts, and using only some of the facts can lead to an incorrect conclusion. I am encouraged to see that there is at least a consensus that whichever way the eventual consensus goes, we should all respect it. Mayalld (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the above is true yet bits are pure rubbish. Sure lots was carried on from the English monarchy. England is 10 times the size of Scotland. Find me a credible source that England "annexed" Scotland somehow and I won't revert either! --Camaeron (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

England is indeed 10 times the size of Scotland (in population). It also has virtually all of the good agricultural land in Britain, leaving Scotland and Wales with the mostly mountainous bits. These are just two of the reasons why England is a far more powerful country than Scotland. In the 17th century, even before the growth of the British Empire, England was one of the great powers of Europe, whereas Scotland was tiny, remote, and weak. These are simple facts - we are not here to judge or to explain them away. This is the reason why England was able to push through the union on its own terms and control it thereafter. This is undeniable. Unfair perhaps, but that's just the way it is. TharkunColl (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced, that the United Kingdom is actually an enlarged Kingdom of England renamed the UK. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet again GD comes to my rescue! Are you sure you dont want me to nominate you for adminship? You would make it I know you would! --Camaeron (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well let's look at it another way. Do you think that England, with 83% of the UK population, effectively controls it? TharkunColl (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ontario has the largest population in Canada & the Canadian capital is in Ontatio. Does that mean Ontario controls the rest of Canada? GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it have more than 80%, or even more than 50% of the population of Canada? England is to the UK what Russia was to the USSR, or Prussia was to Germany. TharkunColl (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a momment. The USSR ceased to exist in 1991, it broke up into 15 independant countries; it was not renamed Russia. Prussia ceased to exist in 1918, while Germany (after a few changes over the decades) still exist. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

When the USSR still existed, Russia took up the bulk of its population and teritory. Same for Prussia in Germany from 1871 to 1945. Same with England in the UK today. This does not apply to Ontario in Canada. TharkunColl (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You do know where the current Prime Minister of the UK is from dont you? It begins with S! --Camaeron (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My god, I was wondering when someone was going to mention that! It shows the tolerance of the English more than anything. We've also had Welsh, Irish, and Canadian PMs. TharkunColl (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish, and Canadian? --Camaeron (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Duke of Wellington was Irish, and Andrew Bonar Law was Canadian. TharkunColl (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Most people would still class them as British! --Camaeron (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And they'd be correct to. Both the Irish and Canadians were British at that time. TharkunColl (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna let you guys work this out. Myself & Tharky may never agree over the 1707 Union Act, but we've agreed to disagree on that issue, months ago. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Camaeron, if I were you I'd back off and let ThurkanCall continue to make an absolute fool of himself with his silly, mostly nonsensical reposts. His deliberate wind-ups are becoming tiresome and mostly contain stuff that border on crap. Bill Reid | Talk 18:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of what I wrote is derived from my knowledge as a historian, especially of English history. But you are perfectly correct - England does indeed border on crap. TharkunColl (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, you certainly are an accomplished historian and I always respect your views and opinions, even if we dont always see eye to eye, but that very impolite and totally uncalled for! --Camaeron (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's what is known as a "joke", actually. TharkunColl (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Tharky, you have to be careful with humourist comments in 'public' discussons such as these. They can backfire sometimes. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As a lurker giving another view, I took Thark's comment as the witticism it was, and was more shocked by the edit "Camaeron, if I were you I'd back off and let ThurkanCall continue to make an absolute fool of himself with his silly, mostly nonsensical reposts. His deliberate wind-ups are becoming tiresome and mostly contain stuff that border on crap." by Bill Reid. It is ot the civilest comment evar.:) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 18:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In summation

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)

WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In a nutshell, nobody is going to write any such thing in the article. Besides, King George VI's second daughter was a Margaret and she was second in line to the throne for some time. Now, I sincerely doubt she would've reigned as Queen Rose. Surtsicna (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

Split & Rename

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)

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)

Howabout renaming it List of Monarchs of Great Britain and the United Kingdom? or is that too cumbersome. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Good point. If this title was changed? as a consistancy buff, I would end up proposing those other articles also be moved to List of Monarchs of XX. Something that the article List of Scottish monarchs would likely reject (again). GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Split and rename x2

A current proposal [[1]] would make a split of this article necessary. Feel free to comment everyone! --Cameron* 13:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatcha wanted to split it into? GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Houses of Hanover (proper), Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and Windsor

Shouldn't these 3 Houses be considered subdivisions of the same House (Hanover). After all, it was just a renaming of the same family line... Gazilion (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nay! GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

User:PorgeHRI'm not quite sure where to suggest this, but the 'Timeline of British Monarch' image is incorrect, I'm not entirely sure how to alter it but Queen Victoria's name has been incorrectly placed.

If you click on the "edit" link to the left of the section title "Timeline of British Monarch" you'll be able to edit it, or click on "edit this page" at the top and scroll down several pages. It's not an image, it is generated by the Wiki markup which starts at <timeline> and ends at </timeline>. But it looks ok to me (Vista/IE7). Can you say what looks wrong with it and what OS and browser you're using? Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User:PorgeHR Queen Victoria's reign is far too short, it should be the longest of all (see below) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.235.49 (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Timeline Of British Monarchs

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)

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)

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)

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)

According to the article on the Gregorian_Calendar, it was adopted in Britain in 1752, making the year 1752 21 days shorter. That would reduce the reign of George II from 33 years 137 days to 33 years 116 days. Could someone check that please? Many thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C040:1C00:28E4:3758:2F1E:521E (talk • contribs)

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)

For the sake of comparison

The creation of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was also a merger of 2 crowns previously in personal union. Ferdinand (IV?) became Ferdinand I the Founder of his new kingdom. In that merger, both previous states were truly abolished. The United Kingdom of Great Britain is clearly more or less a continuation of the State of England, noting that William IV was not William I of Great Britain, whereby Great Britain/England could have distinguished him from William of Normandy. Both cases are mergers of crowns previously in personal union, but only Two Sicilies truly got rid of both previous states. For those of you arguing about Dr. Starkey and whether or not Great Britain is a continuation, perhaps that comparison to another merger of crowns in personal union may provide some insight. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of that comment? Talk pages are not supposed to be forums. They are supposed to be places where users discuss how to improve an article and I am not sure what you are suggesting. Surtsicna (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The point was that a number of other commenters on this very Talk Page were debating whether or not the United Kingdom of Great Britain (when named as such) was truly a new creation. This could affect either a decision to merge Articles or one to explain away what some new readers to the subject might interpret as irregular numbering. The point, which the Article could conceivably acknowledge without showing bias POV or anything, is that the United Kingdom of Great Britain was a merger of crowns in personal union yet not a new creation, unlike Two Sicilies for just one possible contrasting example, both a merger and a new creation.

As shown in the numeral scheme, it is an expanded and renamed version of the old State of England. If Winston Churchill's suggestion of higher numbers is actually followed, a Kenneth, Donald, Constantine, Aed, Geric, Eochaid, Malcolm, Indulf, Dub, Cuilen, Amlaib, Duncan, Macbeth, Lulach, Edgar, Alexander, David, Margaret, Robert, or James would rule it as an expanded and renamed version of the old State of Scotland. Still, only time will tell if that suggestion will be put into actual practice, or whether the names affected by it will be avoided. (We should not forget that while the 2nd daughter of George VI was named Margaret, she was born and Christened before said suggestion/amendment was issued.) The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Newsflash; Check out the accords of Union...you might find that it was (nominally, at least) a union of EQUALS. A couple of other points, Scotland is NOT subsidised by England, as for a long time they have produced a larger tax return per head than England. The failure of the Darien Scheme was in part down to the machinations of the English at the time who did not want competition for trade. It was a Scottish king who took the crown of England, and not the other way round. The line was effectively broken, with no male issue at the time. It was also agreed that the Scots keep their own legal and educational systems. Sovereignty in Scotland is still retained by the people, whereas in England, it is vested in the Crown, via parliament.2.125.67.44 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Renewed suggestion to merge with Monarchs of England

This document [2] includes the Post-Acts of Union British monarchs as Monarchs of England. It's a British site and all. (This list also excludes Queens Matilda and Jane, and by doing so eliminates the non-consecutive 2nd reign of King Stephen. Then again, the legitimacy of these Pre-Mary I queens is controversial anyway.) It lists the now-reigning Queen Elizabeth II as the 41st Monarch of England (based on William of Normandy as the Founder).

Based on this list (as well as the continuation of the numeral scheme which I talked about and contrasted with other mergers above), I suggest a merger with Monarchs of England. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

And what do we do with the monarchs of Scotland? Should we put in Roman emperors who ruled England? Of course not. The article should only list rulers of the Kingdom of England. Surtsicna (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Almost all standard reference works list the English and British monarchs in one continuous list, so to not do so here is actually a case of original research. The same reference works tend to stop the Scottish list at 1603. ðarkuncoll 17:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

They also tend to refer to Elizabeth II as Queen of England, which is actually what the continuity represents. Surtsicna (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No, listing Roman Emperors (under whom Britannia was a province) as Kings of England would be essentially the same as listing British kings until George III (under whom what's now the USA was a confederation of colonies) as Presidents of the USA, a list that traditionally begins with George Washington the same way English/British kings traditionally begin with William of Normandy and Roman Emperors with Augustus. All these 1st office holders had some sort of a document outlining a new entity. George Washington had the then-newly-ratified US Constitution, William of Normandy had his own proclamation of a new kingdom together with an authorization letter from Pope Alexander II, and Augustus had an act by the Senate and Assembly making "Princeps" an office and not simply an honor or award as it had been earlier. Along these notes, an earlier commenter on this very Talk Page pointed out that the actual text of the Acts of Union specifies a numeral continuity (hence why King William IV, for example, was William IV rather than William I of an entirely new UK founded by Queen Anne), thereby implying, in the actual legislation, that the British Crown is essentially an expanded and technically renamed English Crown rather than a wholly new office. Thus, we should merge these lists because offices are what documents specify, not simply what seems less historically arbitrary. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

William I was not the founder of England, and never claimed to be. On the contrary, he took great pains to point out that he was the legitimate successor of Edward the Confessor. ðarkuncoll 11:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course he did. He needed the PR after defeating Harold II (the actual successor of Edward, and the final Anglo-Saxon monarch) at the Battle of Hastings. Nevertheless, he is considered that in retrospect; the numbering scheme reflects this. (Notice how Edward I isn't Edward III based on Edward the Confessor and the other even earlier Edward who ruled Wessex in Pre-Hastings times.)

Whatever he himself said, the Church did consider him the founder of something at any rate. Pope Alexander II crowned him on Christmas Day, which was the practice whenever a new kingdom or other realm was founded. (Compare with Charlemagne, crowned the very 1st Holy Roman Emperor also on Christmas Day.)

Many authoritative lists (including the one I cited above) begin with him for these reasons. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't crowned by the Pope, but by Archbishop Eldred of York. No one regarded him as founding a new kingdom. Numbering kings was a French custom, and is something the English never did. The formula was always, for example, "Edward, the Third Since the Conquest" thereby recognising the unnumbered earlier ones. St Edward the Confessor's crown was still used for coronations. ðarkuncoll 16:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

King Edward III is listed simply as "Edward III" period on most lists I've come across, not as Edward III "Since the Conquest." (By the way, tell that to Harold II, the ruler who lost the Battle of Hastings to William.) Although Pope Alexander II did not personally crown William, he did authorize the coronation (which is what I meant), and the fact that they waited until Christmas Day to crown him was consistent with the Coronation of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor and other new entities. I forget whether Alexander II sent that letter of authorization to the Archbishop of York, to William, or copies to both of them, but the Pope did recognize the legitimacy of a man who would Christianize the remaining Pagan factions among the Anglo-Saxons.

Also, these Pre-Conquest kings were legally either of Wessex or of the Anglo-Saxons depending on when the Pre-Hastings Britons were or were not unified, but both these titles are slightly different from of England. See also the Heptarchy.

In any case, check the list I cited above [3]. What can I say? It starts with William of Normandy and continues all the way to the now-incumbent Queen Elizabeth II.

Final Sidenote: If the numbering were not intended to imply a new office, all the unnumbered kings would be numbered in retrospect no matter how difficult for historians writing in the 11th Century that might have been. Papal numbering was also not customary until perhaps the reign of Benedict IV at the very earliest, but when it did become a universally accepted custom, historians at the time painstakingly numbered all of the Popes who were not referred to with numerals during their actual reigns, including theoretically the Apostle Peter himself as Peter I (Founder of the Diocese of Rome). Note that this was not the case with English/British monarchs. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Pope gave his blessing to William's conquest of England because he accepted William's claim to be the rightful heir to what was already a pre-existing kingdom. What else could William claim to be the heir to? Harold was never called "II" in his lifetime, this is an invention of modern historians. He was called Harold Godwinson. Your speculation about renumbering is precisely that, speculation - and demonstrably wrong, too. Here's an example of the formula "third since the conquest" in a royal circular of 1365 [4]. The title of the monarchs, from Athelstan to John, was King of the English (Rex Anglorum). See here [5]. The website you link to is a really poor source. Try, for example, the royal website itself, which is about as official as it gets [6]. ðarkuncoll 09:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Pope was certainly interested in Christianizing the remaining Pagan Anglo-Saxons. In fact, from what I know as a Roman Catholic who has done at least some research in Church history, things like that were the main reasons that Popes would play along with claims to royal legitimacy/heredity. (For the record, I never denied that "Third Since the Conquest" had ever been used nor did I speculate on such denial; I only said that for whatever reason the "Since the Conquest" part was excluded from most present-day copies of the regnal list.)

As for "King of the English," it was a name rather dubiously used by Kings of Wessex from Alfred the Great onward. (By dubious, I mean that what is now England was legally 7 entirely separate countries at the time. Legally, that is, and in practice every little manor lord basically ran his own manor however he pleased. Again, see the Heptarchy, which is one point you haven't addressed.)

At the risk of sounding like an WP:NPOV infringement (although it really isn't, because the more direct bloodline is traceable), Harold Godwinson was the only legal successor of Edward the Confessor, the one in the bloodline more directly, and in Edward's will if memory serves. Thus, the Conquest is still an abolition of one state, in which Harold was the last head of state, and the formation of another, modern England (IE the state of England that the Acts of Union have now expanded to become the UK). Even if not intended to be that. Oh, by the way, the royal website you linked makes a pretty big deal of the Heptarchy being rather as I described.

The numbering thing is not speculation on the grounds that I can cite another real office that actually existed and still does today, the Papacy, as an example of how numbering is used even in retrospect to show continuity if that is fully intended. Non-hypothetical analogies (if apples-to-apples) are a kind of evidence, and that was apples-to-apples in that both are offices where people are now listed by first names and Roman numerals.

Now, back to the real point: The list should be merged into a larger list of Post-Hastings monarchs. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Pope was mainly interested in William's huge bribe, and his promise to depose Stigand, the excommunicated Archbishop of Canterbury. It was nothing to do with Paganism. The heptarchy was indeed 7 (in fact, usually more) separate kingdoms, but it came to an end in the Danish invasions that allowed England to be united under Alfred and his two successors. From the time of Athelston on they ruled the whole of England as a single realm. Harold Godwinson had no hereditary right to the throne at all - please check these things out before speaking. ðarkuncoll 11:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I did check all this out at some point, although I admit the research I did was a while ago. I'd definitely like to see a source on William needing to depose Stigand. I was under the impression (and recall that I am a Roman Catholic myself) that an excommunicated Bishop was automatically deposed by virtue of his excommunication, which means there was never any need whatsoever for a secular ruler to intervene against him. I'm well aware of the Investiture Controversy later on between the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor, and that until then a man already Consecrated as a Bishop by another Bishop could then be assigned (invested) to a Diocese by a secular ruler. However, from what I studied of it my Freshman Year that had more to do with putting a Bishop in office than taking him out of there. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

- *I oppose the merger suggestion. Deb (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: You must support your reasoning. Otherwise, your vote would not count. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: That will be the decision of the closing admin, not yours. Deb (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I made no decision. No "decision" was meant to be implied, that is. I only referred to existing Wiki policy. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Anne (born 1665, died 1714), was the first British monarch. Therefore, Anne is where the list of British monarchs correctly begin. GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

James I & VI was the first to assume the title King of Great Britain, over 100 years before Anne. And the British royal website [7], surely the nearest thing to an official source that exists, starts the combined list at 1603, not 1707. ðarkuncoll 16:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Great Britina didn't come into existance until 1707. English monarchs from Edward III to Anne, Scottish monarchs from James VI to Anne & British monarchs from Anne to George III 'all' claimed to be French monarchs. Do will add them to the List of French monarchs? no we don't. Neither do we add English monarchs here. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The difference with the French claim is that these monarchs really did rule Great Britain. And in any case, the royal website lists the unified monarchs from 1603. For us not to do so, therefore, is POV. ðarkuncoll 10:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

To take the website as a reliable source for this is ridiculous. It claims the United Kingdom was created in 1603, a claim that no serious historian or scholar would accept. What happened in 1603 and 1604 respectively were the Union of the Crowns and James VI and I's (notice the two ordinals) unilateral decision to adopt the title of King of Great Britain and Ireland. What they mean by "United Kingdom" is a puzzle to me. This is not the only nonsense that can be found on the website. "Official" or not, it is maintained neither by the Queen (and even if it were, who would care?) nor by scholars. Wikipedia should not blindly stick to it. Surtsicna (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, England & Scotland merged in 1707, not 1603. Thus Anne was the last English & Scottish monarch, the first British monarch. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I hate to burst any bubbles, Surtsicna, but what do you mean by "no serious sholar"? David Starkey is a Ph. D. Historian, and he maintains that the UK is a continuation of the pre-existing state of England, making it the oldest (or so he says, although the Icelandic democracy under the Althing is incidently the oldest still operating regime, democratic or otherwise, in the world - and is a European government) surviving state in Europe. He's a serious scholar, and that's not the same as claiming it was a newly created state in 1707. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Children

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) The table is also filled with wild capitalisation and punctation. I will boldly clean it up. Surtsicna (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ya i support your move. It detracts from the article by cluttering it up.Meatsgains (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II

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)

• Seconded. Currently, it looks really inconsistent.Theprussian (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a list

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)

Change photo of Queen Elizabeth

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)

I agree. Richard75 (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

timeline chart dispute

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)

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)

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)

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)

Exactly, Richard. The chart looks perfectly fine, IMHO. --Sundostund (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protect this page

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

Length of reign

This article is not improved by deleting the Length of reign column. Richard75 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

Richard75, 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)

George V's reign

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)

There's no point in listing him twice. The article makes the position clear. Richard75 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Portrait Herbert James Gunn.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

How hard is this to understand?

Right next to the picture of Elizabeth II it says: "<!-- Please do not change the image to a recent one, we are using coronation pictures.-->" I mean is that ambiguous? Richard75 (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Apparently it is. Richard75 (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Renaming of the Royal House in 1917

The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and the House of Windsor are the same house, just with a new name. They're not two different houses, and George V didn't end his reign in 1917 and then start a new reign. Splitting this house in the list, while well-intentioned, is potentially misleading and causes complications. Richard75 (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Technically speaking, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Windsor are two entities and the list should clearly differentiate them. The fact that their members are from the same family does not discount the possibility of dynastic variation. It is true that George V did not start a new reign on 17 July 1917, which is specifically why he is not listed as "George VI" in the "House of Windsor" section of the article. I do, however, understand your point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.135.231 (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

But they're not two entities are they? It's the same royal house, with a new name. You wouldn't become a new entity if you changed your name. And it isn't only Wikipedia that declines to list George V twice. I've never seen any list anywhere that lists him twice. Finally, it can hardly be misleading if the article explains it clearly, which it does. Richard75 (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

From a biological standpoint, it is true that formally changing your name does not result in the creation of a new entity. Legally speaking, however, this is not the case. Because this is an article about political history, the legal perspective must take precedence over its biological counterpart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D419:6400:10E6:2C3B:9205:2627 (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no such law. Richard75 (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. No reliable sources do this. It is a wikipedia invention that is both ludicrous and misleading. DrKay (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, quite silly. As far as I can tell, the change from Hanover to Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is also nothing more than genealogical trivia. I suggest that the name of the royal house should be in a cell just like Marriages, Birth, Death, etc. Then, perhaps, a single cell could span the entries for George I, George II, George III, George IV, William IV, and Victoria to sort of unify them; and then the same for the Coburgs and Windsors. That way the list would not be cut into pieces by section headers. (If any such separation is warranted, it is to set apart the monarchs of the Kingdom of Great Britain from the monarchs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland.) Surtsicna (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is an example of what the list could look like if we did it the way Surtsicna suggests. Richard75 (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Richard75. I was not able to do it myself. Perhaps we could remove the Claim column because, in this list, it is nearly always redundant to the Birth column. One might also argue that each monarch's claim ultimately stems from their relationship to Sophia of Hanover rather than a parent or grandparent. Surtsicna (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a good solution, because Windsor is really regarded as a separate house in the UK. Most people would have no idea what Saxe-Coburg-Gotha even means.Deb (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me. DrKay (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. (I've left the Claim column alone for now in case there isn't a consensus to remove it.) I've included Surtsicna's recent edits. Richard75 (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the "House" column of the table is too narrow, which results in the cluttering of the text within the sections devoted to Edward VII and George V. In order to make the table aesthetically appealing, I will transfer the column's information to the "Notes" section of the article. For the good of the reader, the notes will be split into a "Coronations" division and a "Houses" division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D419:6400:284D:67D0:E1F5:9375 (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It's boring and farcically repetitive. There should be a maximum of one footnote per house. I tested the columns on both PC and mobile view: there's nothing wrong with either. DrKay (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

A historical list is designed to inform its readers by displaying information in a way that is orderly and uniform. It is not meant to excite people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:d419:6400:487d:ad4a:aa86:bfad (talk • contribs)

There are 4 people on this page agreeing that the House column should remain and if a column is removed that it should be the Claim column. You're the only one saying otherwise. Consensus is to retain the column. DrKay (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Templates

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)

Redesign?

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:

Houses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (1901–1917), and Windsor (from 1917)
"Because his father, Albert, Prince Consort, was of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Edward VII inaugurated a new royal house when he succeeded his mother Victoria, the last monarch of the House of Hanover, in 1901. George V changed the name of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to the House of Windsor on 17 July 1917, during the First World War, because of wartime anti-German sentiment in the country."

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)

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)

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)

Comments on the article

1. I do not think the introduction to Anne is really necessary. If that is the case all monarchs should have an introduction which is probably equally unnecessary.

2. "For a family tree that shows her relationship to George I, see George I of Great Britain § Family tree."

I don't understand the point of this remark. At most, it should point to the relationship of George I to Anne since George I links to Anne and not the other way around.

3. Is it really necessary to exactly list how many years and days each monarch lived? I think the years should be more than enough.

ICE77 (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Unless, her reign is adjusted in the table to show the correct dates and length, we need some note explaining why her reign is shown with the incorrect ones.
2. I agree.
3. I agree. DrKay (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

1. The introduction to Anne is because she was already queen of England and Scotland, two separate kingdoms, before she was queen of the united kingdom of Great Britain. It doesn't follow that we would give all the other monarchs their own introductions for consistency. (The dates are correct by the way. The beginning of her reign in England and Scotland is given in a footnote, but we could make it more prominent.)

2. I think we do need the link to the family tree because it helps to understand the Hanoverian Succession. But I agree that the emphasis should be the other way round.

3. I'm not bothered. Playing devil's advocate, I suppose you could argue that it would make the article less informative, but on the other hand it does seem like an unnecessary level of detail and even trivial.

Richard75 (talk)

1. I agree that it makes sense to explain Anne was queen of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1702-1707 and that she became queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707 but it is also true that this article is about the British Monarchs so it really should not matter to have an introduction when history here starts in 1707.

2. Then let's swap it around.

3. The number of days seems unnecessary to me.

ICE77 (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of List of British monarchs by longevity into List of British monarchs

Mostly duplicative Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

Seems like a bit of a faff though; who can be bothered? Richard75 (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oppose: This is an informative list, about the life-span of the British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support merge of both the longevity and length of reign lists into the main list of monarchs. No reason that can't be handled by a sortable column in the main article. There's really no need for three lists when we have the ability to sort lists. oknazevad (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I think it would be useful to have age at death as a separate column as profiled by User:TompaDompa[8], so that the table can be sorted by lifespan/longevity. It's one extra column and the content is already in the table anyway, so there's no 'added clutter'. DrKay (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The longevity list is very short and it's more convenient for readers to have the information all in one place. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• H.M. Queen Elizabeth II in Coronation Robes.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

why was it deleted Gpshshdhe (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merge with List of English monarchs

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Queen Elizabeth in her coronation portrait.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Edward VIII Portrait - 1936.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Philip

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)

Marriage certificate

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.f^Talk 20:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

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.f^Talk 21:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

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.f^Talk 15:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Invalid marriage of George IV

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)

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)

Age at death

I think it would be useful to have age at death as a separate column as profiled by User:TompaDompa[9], so that the table can be sorted by lifespan/longevity. DrKay (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a consensus to do this above. I see no disadvantage to doing it. Richard75 (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Age and birth of George III

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)

Why the coin for Edward VIII?

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)

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)

Alright thanks! Jeeibleh (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Philip of Spain

See Talk:List_of_English_royal_consorts#Philip_of_Spain_(again).Alekksandr (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Regnal name of The King

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)

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)

Apparently, Clarence House has confirmed the regnal name is to be Charles III. Pmetzger (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles III?

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)

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) DAWGinRoswell 18:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. While it is likely, it's not official at this point.--KD0710 (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Apparently Clarence House has now confirmed that the king has selected Charles III. Pmetzger (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Coat of arms

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)

Agree, to use the current version until further notice. --Sodacan (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

"Will be." Richard75 (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

That is, "will be" as in "not yet." Richard75 (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

The article you quoted is about Charles III. Richard75 (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Error in table (length of reign)

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)

Fixed. DrKay (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• King Charles III in 2022 (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• King Charles III adressed to the UK and 14 Commonwealth countries (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Royal cyphers

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

House name

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)

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)

They didn't use surnames until recently. Richard75 (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

The Royal House is still Windsor. If King Charles III decides to change it to (for example) Mountbatten? he'll announce it. So far, he hasn't done so. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Presentation of Address to His Majesty King Charles III (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Charles III and Queen Camilla Balcony (cropped Charles III).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 1 HMK seated Throne Room.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2023

New Official Portrait for Charles III is on this website.[10] Can you please use that portrait? Please. 2601:40A:8400:5A40:1974:CD8E:7D0D:4DE (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see Talk:Charles III#Profile image update 73.93.5.246 (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Why is George V put before Edward VII

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)

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)

I want permission

May I use this image for Queen Elizabeth II

http://theroyalcorrespondent.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/qeii.jpg Mawbawinranaghat (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It's quite poor quality. Richard75 (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

This picture is of good quality

File:Queen Elizabeth II on her Coronation Day (cropped).jpg 2401:E180:8811:107A:66CE:D94A:18CF:E68B (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this one okay? 2401:E180:8811:107A:66CE:D94A:18CF:E68B (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Charles III Days Reigned

Can someone update Charles III's days reigned? StrawWord298944 (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It's automated. DrKay (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Royal Cypher

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)

Merging 3 Pages

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)

• @GamerKlim9716: It has sort of been addressed in the intro to List of English monarchs. I think the gist is that the first "English" monarch, as such, is Alfred the Great (of Wessex). Scots are listed elsewhere List of Scottish monarchs. —GoldRingChip 21:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Photo of King Charles

The photo from his coronation is kinda goofy looking. I'd love to see it replaced with the portrait just released for Armed Forces Day where he's in Field Marshall Uniform

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv2gle48845o 2001:8003:22C0:9601:C0F1:95B6:C3D8:8416 (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

That image might be copyrighted to Hugo Bernand. We can only use copyright-free images here. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)