Talk:List of English monarchs/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

"House of Wessex / Denmark / Godwin"

I'm not sure about these section headings. It's one thing to write House of York or House of Lancaster, as these are recognised royal houses. But in the interests of making the list format consistent, we appear to have anachronistically invented royal house names that never existed. I don't think there has ever really been a "House of Wessex," a "House of Denmark" or a "House of Godwin." I'd like to change this to "Anglo-Saxons" and "Danes," but I'll wait for a while and see if anyone objects first. Richard75 (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer not having section headings based on dynasties. It would be better to divide the list into pre-Conquest monarchs and post-Conquest monarchs. The dynasties should be given in the table. Surtsicna (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The Pitkin pamphlet The Royal Line of Succession, available since at least 1970, credited to former Debrett's Peerage editor Patrick Montague-Smith, uses "House of Cerdic", "House of Godwin", and "House of Denmark", so there is no thought of Wikipedians inventing these names. "Lancaster" and "York" are NOT "Houses" in the genealogical sense but branches of the Plantagenets. (Montague-Smith uses them as sub-headings on the table for the pages he designates "The House of Anjou * Part 2" which comes after the pages for "The Houses of Normandy Blois and Anjou * part 1"). LE (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Lancaster and York are cadet branches of the Plantagenets, descending from the younger sons of Edward III of England. The senior line of descent went extinct when Richard II of England died childless, in 1400. Dimadick (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The houses of York and Lancaster are not distinct 'houses' in the genealogical sense, but they are separate dynastic houses in the eyes of centuries of English historical practice (just as French historians make a distinction between the 'Direct Capets' and their Valois and Bourbon successor lines that were all genealogically members of the same house as the earlier Robertian kings). Agricolae (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

"Disputed claimants"

These monarchs can really make those below seem as though they are all disputed as well. This can be very confusing to read, especially if familiar with the way a "section" on Wikipedia works. The notes on the disputes should be in footnotes shown right next to their names. Altanner1991 (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments on the article

This is an interesting and fairly well organized list of kings of England.

1. England was born in 927 under Æthelstan. I don't understand the point of listing kings before him that were at most kings of of Wessex or kings of the Anglo-Saxons. They were not kings of England proper.

2. "By signing the Treaty of Lambeth in September 1217, Louis gained 10,000 marks and agreed he had never been the legitimate king of England."

I don't think this is well explained. I wonder why Louis VIII of France/Louis I of England agreed he was not the legitimate king. Please add some clarity.

3. The "Titles" section mentions "Edmund the Magnificent" which is Edmund I (921-946) and "Eadwig the Fair" which is Eadred (940-959). Then "Edmund the Magnificent" and "Eadwig the Fair" should be added and bolded below Edmund I and Eadwig (just like for Richard I, to name one).

ICE77 (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

1. There has been a great deal of discussion about this subject in the past. To summarise, it's not as clear cut as England was created overnight. There was definitely an England since Athelstan, but it can't be said that there definitely wasn't an England before him. The consensus settled on Alfred.

2. Louis realised he wasn't going to be able to keep England and agreed to a pay off. I think we didn't want to go into too much detail in an article which is really just meant to be a list, and so interested readers can follow the links to Treaty of Lambeth or to Louis if they want to know more. It would probably be okay to add one more sentence though, if you like.

3. Fine.

Richard75 (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Richard75, thanks for the comments.

1. When I look at the articles on Alfred the Great I see him described as "King of Wessex from 871 to c. 886 and King of the Anglo-Saxons from c. 886 to 899". When I look at Kingdom of England I see 927 written all over the article. When I look at Ollie Bye's History of the British Isles map at 3:04 England appears for the first time on the map in the year 927. The Heptarchy article defines the Heptarchy as "a collective name applied to the seven kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon England (sometimes referred to as petty kingdoms) from the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain in the 5th century until their unification into the Kingdom of England in the early 10th century." therefore indicating early 900s. This article uses "King of the English (927–939)" and says "Edward's son Æthelstan became the first king to rule the whole of England when he conquered Northumbria in 927, and he is regarded by some modern historians as the first true king of England. The title "King of the English" or Rex Anglorum in Latin, was first used to describe Æthelstan in one of his charters in 928." As far as I can see 927 and Æthelstan are all over the places.

2. I understand. A lengthy explanation is not needed but something brief would help.

3. I don't see the update yet with the "nicknames".

4. It would be nice to spell out the name of the last 3 wives of Henry VIII which are no less important than the first 3.

ICE77 (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

ICE77, thank you for your input. First we need reliable sources pointing to the definitive marking of Æthelstan as the first "English" king. Without that there is nothing we can do (Wikipedia quotes aren't RS). Most official dialogue on the subject, from what I have seen, puts Alfred the Great as the first English king and that's how the majority of writing on Wikipedia had been. If we want to turn something around we need consensus and we need to be consistent, too. Because confusing readers for the sake of an accuracy-related debate is not constructive to the writing of an encyclopedia, unfortunately. I am all for changing the demarcation from Wessex to England, including a "transitionary" approach that uses notes or sections to describe the phenomenon. However without this careful approach we are merely bickering on live pages (as has been the case in the past) again, to the detriment of readers. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

In this case, Alfred is *widely* popular as the de-facto first King of the English, from BBC to recent books, but there are academic perspectives otherwise. There was the same issue over at the Linux pages: should the "more appropriate" or "more popular" terminology be used? The policy here on Wikipedia is called WP:COMMONNAME. It isn't random that Alfred "more often" goes first, it's a debate among various academic points of view with those of the general population. Altanner1991 (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback altaner. Reliable sources: Michael Wood seems about as reliable as it comes and it appears to be his specialist subject 1)https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/history-of-war/michael-wood-on-athelstans-great-war-to-unite-anglo-saxon-england/ 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG7ar1FBfqY&feature=youtu.be Hellodavey1902

Henry the Young King

I meant to write that he wasn't a king in my edit summary, sorry. Discussed before here: [1]. Richard75 (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Every source I check (reliable, actual encyclopedic sources) describes him entirely as "co-regent" / "co-ruler", exactly like you would have with other examples through history for example the regency of William & Mary 1689-1694. The old talk page discussion was from 2008 and had only one person countering in a conversation of three people; maybe some other sources need to pop up that "verifiably" discredit his inclusion. We can't reinterpret what the sources say, only report what they say, and what they say so far, is regency equal to the father. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

There was, I forgot to mention, "frustration" regarding the needs for more "autonomy", however this is common in any situation and it can't discredit the claims on its own stand; doing so would be original research / synthesis. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

If we had enough reliable sources to say "Junior King" rather than "King" quite simply then I would say it would at least warrant a note regarding his "disputed" status as King. But like I said the sources are very clear and very direct. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you provide the sources you refer to? Richard75 (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes these are very good:

Altanner1991 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. But both sources say on the first page that the Young King never ruled. It was just a title. Richard75 (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes but should a child/baby die without much ruling at all, it is still included in the article and lists by a matter of policy. For example Edward V (who wasn't even crowned before he died so young), Edward VI, same in France, etc... Altanner1991 (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. I'd like to see what others think. Richard75 (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 31 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 15:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC) ~ Amkgp 💬 15:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

---

• List of English monarchs → List of monarchs of England after the Norman Conquest
• List of monarchs of Wessex → List of monarchs of Wessex and England before the Norman Conquest

– The current title of this list is misleading and confusing. It starts with Alfred the Great and excludes earlier monarchs who were just as English - his predecessors and monarchs of other early kingdoms such as Mercia. It includes monarchs who were not English, such as Cnut and William the Conqueror. The most crucial transition of the last 1500 years was the Norman Conquest, and it also provides a logical and clear break point. The transition from Wessex to England was very important but it was gradual, from monarchs of the West Saxons, to monarchs of the Anglo-Saxons, to monarchs of England. There is no obvious break point with the current structure as the change from Wessex to England was gradual, with Alfred having been the last King of Wessex and Æthelstan the first King of England. The break point between the two lists is a matter of opinion, with no reliable sources to cite for any particular view. If the move goes through, kings from Alfred to Harold Godwinson would of course be transferred to the earlier list. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The Kingdom of England existed before the Norman Conquest and to imply otherwise would be to falsify history. As for the argument that it has no clear starting point, this is irrelevant, as the same can be said for many other polities too. We simply report this fact as best as we can. TharkunColl (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The title List of monarchs of Wessex and England before the Norman Conquest does not imply that there were no monarchs of England before the Conquest. It covers both monarchs of Wessex and monarchs of England. If you think that it is ambiguous then it could be List of monarchs of Wessex and monarchs of England before the Norman Conquest, but this seems to me clumsy and unnecessary.Dudley Miles (talk) 09:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be open for splitting this into "List of monarchs of the English" and "List of monarchs of England". That is rex anglorum and rex angliae, Æthelstan is is recoded having used title of rex anglorum first in 928 and it was continuously used until John replaced it with rex angliae. Go-Chlodio (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm against this. The article already explains in the lead that where the list should start is ambiguous, and creating a new article won't solve the problem. Many lists of kings of any country will have this issue, as kingdoms usually aren't created overnight but evolve from smaller realms combining. A list of Kings of England and Wessex doesn't help, because Offa of Mercia would still be excluded. And having two lists of kings of England and kings of the English is utterly pointless. Richard75 (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a good move, but I'll accept either way. The issue of "breaking point" has always been to ambiguous and leads to unnecessary arguing, IMO. This would careful split each article into a "English(Germanic)-French(today, Latin)" cultural breaking point, rather than a "Wessex(Germanic)-Anglo-Saxon(also Germanic) ambiguity. It would be helpful to readers and editors alike. I should add the Norman Conquest is well-accepted in encyclopedic material as a "major shift", one of the largest if not the most important. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I should balance my view here because I do appreciate the search for the beginning of "England", and that's in the Wessexian era, not the Norman one. So I'll leave it split because on the other hand the triviality of "first English king" is also annoying; Norman makes at least "a clear cut". Altanner1991 (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. A simpler solution to the problem is List of monarchs of England. Srnec (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It's rife for the same problems because the breaking points are not clear. The implication behind my prognosis is also, that "British" and "English" must also say separate and so it is best to choose a name that can carefully distinguish its boundaries. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Historiography is difficult here, and the proposed solutions solves none of those difficulties, it merely shuffles them around a bit, while it also adds unnecessarily confusing titles to articles. The growth of the modern nation state is messy and does not lend itself to easy, bold lines of demarcation, but lines still need to be drawn somewhere, and the current set up matches how most histories deal with the situation. There is no perfect solution, merely adequate ones, and this is the most adequate, IMHO. --Jayron32 13:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Not so: the move would finally create a clear line of demarcation for the sake of our articles, and it's potentially the most significant turning point in the lineage as their language had been French, not English (and which language later influenced our own). Altanner1991 (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a different line, I'll give you that. It's not necessarily a better line, and moving it to that one creates its own problems. --Jayron32 13:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Well there is too much dispute with the "old" line and I don't see any problems with the potential move. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The language of the Normans was certainly (a version of) French, and that of the early Plantagenets too. But by the time we get to the Houses of Lancaster and York, they were speaking English as their first language, so it makes no sense to split the list along linguistic lines. We might as well say that since William III's first language was Dutch, we should split it there too, at the Glorious Revolution. The fact is that the English state had already been in existence for well over a century by the time of the Norman Conquest, and it was this polity that William I took over. TharkunColl (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The Kingdom of England existed since the 920s, 140 years before the Norman conquest. Ignoring all monarchs prior to William I or calling them mere Kings of Wessex is problematic. Two lists in place of one seems pointless. Dimadick (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Unnecessarily wieldy titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Start of Henry II's reign

I have reverted this back to 19 December because his reign pre-dated the rule that the new king became king immediately on the death of his predecessor. This was agreed at Talk:List of English monarchs/Archive 6#Proposal to change reign dates in April 2018. Richard75 (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Revisit of Starting the List with Athelstan? (2019)

Hi... just made some edits with a view to starting the list with Athelstan - BUT WITH MAKING CLEAR & CONCISE REFERENCE TO THE TRANSITION FROM WESSEX/ALFRED/EDWARD TO ATHELSTAN/ENGLAND. Richard75 pointed me to discussion back in 2013 on this. Has the consensus shifted or at least the narrative/evidence become clearer since? Basically.. Alfred - Wessex (1/3 of 'England') Edward - Wessex & Mercia (1/2 of 'England') Aethalstan - Wesex, Merica & the Danelaw, ie = England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellodavey1902 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Thanks David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellodavey1902 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The majority has been Alfred the Great, and currently he is the de-facto point of transition especially because it occurred midway through his reign, so it has a defining moment. If we would seek to change this we should do so across timeline, template, article, Wessex page equivalents, etc. I am all for it but the spurious changes have not been cohesive such of the quality expected in encyclopedic material. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback altaner. Reliable sources: Michael Wood seems about as reliable as it comes and it appears to be his specialist subject 1)https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/history-of-war/michael-wood-on-athelstans-great-war-to-unite-anglo-saxon-england/ 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG7ar1FBfqY&feature=youtu.be Hellodavey1902

While the historian you provided can indeed be considered, it's not yet enough to make the change from Alfred the Great to Æthelstan as first English monarch. It is (I think) a major debate, so it would need discussion to make the change across the various Wikipedia pages. I myself am neutral to the proposition at the moment and would support either decision. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

In general, Alfred the Great as first king of the English is the "popular" notion (BBC, general public, etc...), while Æthelstan has some added weight on the "academic" side of things. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Henry VIII

Technically speaking, he only had three wives. An annulment means the marriage never existed. Three of his marriages were annulled. I'm not going to make the correction, lest I offend the high and mighty Wikipedia community, who seem to think they know better. However, this is a FACT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smratguy (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Repeating entries

Three kings are listed twice: Æthelred II, Henry VI, and Edward IV. This is apparently done because they reigned twice. This article is not a list of reigns, however, but a list of monarchs. Can we not simply list each of them once and have the table and the section text indicate that they reigned twice? It seems a bit excessive to repeat all the information about the date and place of their births and deaths, names of their wives, places where they married (do we need that at all?), etc. Surtsicna (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Bretwalda

Should we add the Bretwaldas? They had dominance over much of England MCMax05 (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the Bretwalda article, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on who qualifies, and also they pre-date the existence of the kingdom of England. Let's just keep it as a list of kings of one kingdom instead of several. Richard75 (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Bretwaldas are generally accepted as who Bede states was one. There were other people who claimed the title later like Alfred the Great (The first King of England on this page) and Athelstan (the other candidate for 'first king').

The you have Offa, who personally declared himself King of England. MCMax05 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Birth date of Henry IV

When was Henry IV born? What date is correct? No sources found about Henry IV birth date. Usernogood (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Citation is given at Henry IV of England: https://web.archive.org/web/20190913141912/http://droppdf.com/files/I7wGe/mortimer-2007-historical-research.pdf / https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2281.2006.00403.x. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The first link only shows the first page of the article, which doesn't tell us the date, and the second link doesn't allow access to everyone. Richard75 (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Mortimer says the span is late March to mid-May 1367 with the 15 April (Maundy Thursday that year) as the most likely. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Alfred

Can anyone fill me in on why Alfred is on this list even though he never ruled Northumbria to claim all of England? Faren29 (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This has been debated a lot, for example see here, here and here. The consensus is that the English realm existed before Northumbria joined it, and a boundary change does not result in the creation of a new country. Richard75 (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is this not reflected in the Kingdom of England page then? Faren29 (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

It should be. The first two paragraphs of that article are much too dogmatic about the date of the kingdom's supposed founding. Richard75 (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

If so, the article and all the other articles that claim Æthelstan as the first King of England, need to be edited and fixed. Faren29 (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Talk:Kingdom of England. Richard75 (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Regnal numbers before 1066

The use of regnal numbers in England was introduced by the Normans. The Saxons and Danes didn't use them, and neither do historians when writing about them. Wikipedia should describe them the way normal sources do, e.g. Edmund Ironside (not "Edmund II"). Richard75 (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It is not that simple. I doubt the Normans introduced regnal numbers in England. The first ten or so post-Conquest kings are not known to have used them. What I do know for certain not to be true is historians not using regnal numbers when referring to pre-Conquest kings. Edmund, for instance, is quite commonly called Edmund II, including in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Surtsicna (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Per Surtsicna, this needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis based on each. Harold II [2] [3] [4] is certainly used commonly for Harold Godwinson in the context of his role as King of England; though for some of the others, such as the various pre-1066 Edwards, it is far less common, for example Edward the Confessor is not usually numbered as Edward III, [5] [6] [7], since that confuses him with the later Edward of Windsor, who is the more common use of Edward III of England. Basically, Harold II is used for Harold Godwinson, but Edward III is not used for Edward the Confessor. Is it confusing because it is inconsistent? Yup. But it was confusing and inconsistent long before Wikipedia was around. --Jayron32 18:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Egbert

Would someone add Egbert? He was the first king of Wessex. Also I don't know his date and birth year. Flag Creator (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

He wasn't king of England. We have a list of kings of Wessex, and he's on that. Richard75 (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth I

What about queen Elizabeth I? Flag Creator (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

She is listed under List of English monarchs#House of Tudor, after Mary I and Philip. Jacoby531 (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Richard II's arms

It is reported that he did, only in 1395, had his own coat of arms impaled with the mythical arms of the Edward the Confessor. Before such date the used the Coat of Arms of his predecessor. Could someone fix this, by adding the CoA of his precessero and mark it "until 1395", or something similar? I'd do this myself, but i do not have the abilities to do it sadly. Thank you for reading! 82.58.77.52 (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that verifies this? DDMS123 (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I think what he says is written in Richard II's page Mattia332 (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I found the source that backs 82.58.77.52's claim, which is in Richard II's page: "Tuck (2004)."

The page text says:

He was particularly devoted to the cult of Edward the Confessor, and around 1395 he had his own coat of arms impaled with the mythical arms of the Confessor.

@DDMS123 I hope this can help Mattia332 (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mattia332, yes this helps. DDMS123 (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Glad to hear that! Have a nice time for the time being! Mattia332 (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mattia332 - Thank you. You have a nice time as well. DDMS123 (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

So, is any change happening..? 79.24.186.111 (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Shortest reigning

Can someone add the shortest reigning English monarch? It would be really helpful if you add it. Flag Creator (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

It's already done in List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign. Keivan.f^Talk 13:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Earlier monarchs

I am aware that there is some dispute about who was the first king of England. However I suggest the template about English/British/Scottish monarchs should include Alfred, Edward the Elder, and possibly Alfweard, albeit possibly as disputed. Sweyn should possibly be treated as disputed as well. PatGallacher (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think an RfC on that template's talk page could be more helpful? You can also notify the users at Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty and Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Keivan.f^Talk 13:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Ambiguous title

The title should be 'Monarchs of England'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)