Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New two-table format

After a few years of discussion about splitting the table, I have decided to try out a new format that I hope will please most people.

The first table is "Monarchs with verifiable reigns by exact date", which has our years/days format, now uninterrupted by the "years-only" monarchs. When editing this table, we can simply add monarchs (as we find them) into their exact position, or move our current three incumbents up, one at a time.

The second table is "Monarchs whose exact dates of rule are unknown", where I have put our years-only monarchs. I did NOT feel that these monarchs should be "excluded" from the page en masse, but I do like the idea that the reader can scroll down to find them on the same page. As with the old format, monarchs with similar lengths (e.g., 60 years) are listed in historical order by start year. I would recommend that we continue this practice, so if you are adding them, please follow the pattern. IF we find more information that adds "days" to our knowledge of the length of reign, we can promote certain monarchs from the second table to the first. (In fact, this two-table format may encourage editors to seek further details, such as on non-English-language wikipedia pages.)

Please let's keep discussing this - if you prefer the earlier format, or have suggestions for alternatives, feel free to voice them!

Br.locke (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

In all honesty what you've done with the table is exactly what this page has needed for some time. The earlier format didn't logically make sense due to the verified reigns being cluttered with unverified reigns between them. The one problem I do see with the page however is the way monarchs with unverified reign start and/or end dates are just assumed to have reigned for a specific amount of years when there is more than one year that they could have reigned for. This is easier to demonstrate than to describe, so I'll use an example:

Johann III's reign began in 1331 and ended in 1398, and his reign length has been listed as 67 years. We know he can't have reigned for more than 67 years because if his reign began on 1st January 1331 and ended on 31st December 1398 then you still have 67 years (one day off 68, you can't actually reach 68). However, he could have reigned for 66 years, if his reign began, say, on 31st December 1331 and ended on 1st January 1398 (a total reign of 66 years, 1 day).

This misnomer can only be solved by placing both numbers of years which a monarch could have reigned for (unless the exact information is gathered, in which case the monarch moves to the other table anyway).

In the topic I posted on the matter I suggested creating two new tables, so that we can split those monarchs with unverified length of reign from those that do, and further split those with disputed reigns from those whose reigns are not disputed. The reason for the first split (performed by the new table) is already well described on this discussion page, the reason for the other one was to separate monarchs whose reigns we know are of a certain number of years (even if we don't know the exact length including days) from those who we can only assume reigned for so long anyway (i.e. Pepe II's reign is said to have been a maximum of 94 years, but many egyptologists state that it was shorter, maybe even as short as only 64 years, whereas we know that the aforementioned Johann III reigned for 63-64 years). However, seeing as there are only three monarchs with disputed lengths of reign in the table at this moment of time, it seems pointless to make a third table. If, however, other legendary monarchs, such as the Japanese emperors (who have been mentioned on this discussion page previously) are added to the new table by those wikipedia users who know the essential information about them (which would seem reasonable now we're not placing the verified monarchs with those whose reigns are unverified), I would suggest creating another table. However, that is a topic for the future, IF any such additions to the table are made.Burbridge92 (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really like this. The problem I see is that some people might think this list is ranking the longest reigning monarchs and take only the first list as fact and ignore the second one which contains such people as Ramesses II and other ancient kings that aren't mythical but can't be traced to an exact date in days and months. Also do we seriosuly need to include the minor German princelings that held nominal power if any at all, it's similar to listing British earls or dukes.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

To some extent I agree with you due to the fact that many of the monarchs included on the second table are minor monarchs, however seeing as they are monarchs it would hard to justify not including them. After all, this page is about "longest reigning monarchs", and not "not longest reigning major monarchs". With regards to the idea that people might only take the first list into account, I must respectfully disagree. Both lists are adequately labelled and the title of the first list does not suggest that the second list only includes rumoured reign lengths. On the contrary, I think the labelling shows clearly that it is merely a separation of those monarchs whose reign's are known to the exact day as opposed to those monarchs whose reign's length and period is known but not to specific dates (with the exception of the disputed reigns). Also, it's worthy to point out that none of the monarchs listed in the second table are mythical per se, all of them existed, it's just, as you said, that the exact date's of their reigns are unknown, so the presence the likes of Rameses II is not belittled by the other monarchs mentioned in the list, they were all as real as he was.Burbridge92 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep the "princelings". First of all, by whose judgment do we consider major or minor? Sovereign is sovereign. To impose one system of valuation (British dukes an earls were appanages) upon another (sovereign counts in the HRE were not appanages) would result in a system of widespread ethnocentrism: our 3rd-longest current ruler, in Malaysia, would be discounted, which we don't want to do. Concepts of nation-states have always been in flux. Secondly, this page exists, in my opinion, for the fun of including them together in one place. Lastly, you never know where some of those minor "princelings" are going to end up: aren't we glad that, for instance, the Dukes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha weren't so easily discounted, in retrospect? Br.locke (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Like the count of Castell or the Lords of Lippe or a French manor lord or seigneur? I don't think HRE states really achieve actual sovereingty and can be called actual sovereigns until the last 400 or 500 years. The concern is when I first began editing on wikipedia articles like List of longest-reigning British monarchs and List of British monarchs by longevity said the longest reigning European monarch was Louis XIV of France, but now it's now Bernhard VII, which is really confusing.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue with this is that all of the monarchs listed on this page are classed as sovereignty, and they do belong on the page according to the criteria. As for the mention of Louis XIV of France being the longest reigning European monarch of all time, that is true if you are speaking in terms of whole nations. Monarchs like Bernhard VII were sovereign over principality's under the Holy Roman Empire, not entire nations. You mentioned British history, well if you go back far enough England was divided similarly into different kingdoms, all with their own monarchs. Now, what if one of these monarchs, say for instance Egbert of Wessex, had just so happened to have had a reign of 80 years or more? I still think, even if this were the case, that Louis XIV of France would be listed as the longest reigning European monarch (although in this case Egbert would certainly be given a mention on the page for List of British monarchs by longevity, much like James Francis Edward Stuart is currently given a mention on the page for being the longest reigning pretender in the history of the British isles). Burbridge92 (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well those Lords of Lippe that you dismiss so derisively were the direct ancestors of the current monarchs of Holland. And Lippe itself survived well past the time you mention - as a principality with its own currency all the way to 1918. In my opinion the title of the "longest reigning European monarch" is just a construct, and is bound to change as we find more and more information. When Bernhard VII is superceded by another whom we find at some point, so be it. In the hypothesis above I'm not sure why Egbert of Wessex wouldn't be above Louis XIV if his sub-English monarchy was a sovereign land. To do so doesn't take anything away from the grandeur of Louis XIV, except the sentimentality of having him "#1". I'm also not sure why we're having this discussion when our particular list is more than just European. Br.locke (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The longest reigning British monarchs page has reverted back to the previous claim that Louis XIV is the longest reigning monarch on account of the fact that the page for Lippe leaders indicates that Bernhand VII was not a monarch. Burbridge92 (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We're having this discussion because the issue that Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy believed there was on this page stems from the classification of Louis XIV as the longest reigning monarch in European history. It's fallacious that he is labled as such, but the only justification I can think of that makes sense would be that France isn't a microstate, and all of the European monarchs that are listed above Louis XIV on the table (of which there are six, including Bernhard VII) were monarchs of microstates either entirely or partially located in what is now Germany, and hence that is why Louis XIV is listed as the longest-reigning European monarch on the British page. I think the only logical way to resolve this issue would be to edit the details of Louis XIV to the details of Bernhard VII on the British monarchs page, as even Louis XIV's page itself states that he "is one of the longest documented reigns of any European monarch", and not the actual longest, and it even has a link to this page on his page to verify this. Burbridge92 (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've changed Louis XIV of France to Bernhard VII on the List of longest-reigning British monarchs page and I've updated the information as necessary. I've also posted a discussion topic on the discussion page to explain why Louis XIV doesn't qualify as the "longest reigning monarch in European history" as previously suggested on that page. That should be the problem solved. Burbridge92 (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, after much confusion on my own part, I've finally figured out why users were referencing Louis XIV on the "British monarchs" page - I hadn't scrolled far enough to the TOTALLY HYPOTHETICAL part of it. If Elizabeth II reaches over 100 years old she'll have split so many hairs she'll be able to dance on the head of a pin... and we're worried about the accuracy of THIS page? Why not calculate the date when she'll surpass Jeanne Calment or perhaps Methuselah_(tree)? Just kidding. Actually, maybe we should have a calculation to determine the date at which Bernhard VII of Lippe "would have been surpassed by Louis XIV"... Br.locke (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it is purely hypothetical, but that's the point of that section, it merely states how long it would take Elizabeth II to surpass certain reigns IF she lives that long. It doesn't suggest that she WILL live that long, and the accuracy of that section (now I've altered the longest-reigning European monarch from Louis XIV to Bernhard VII) is spot on. The date at which she would have surpassed Pepe II's disputed reign used to be included on there instead of Sobhuza II, but that was completely futile as the reign was disputed and she would have had to live way longer than the average supercentenarian in order to do it. I would suggest not mentioning how long it would have taken Louis XIV to surpass the reign of Bernhard VII due to it being irrelevent on that page (on a British monarchs page it would be two foreign monarchs that were being compared). The only possible reason for its inclusion would be to show how long the longest-reigning monarch of an average state in Europe would have had to continue reigning in order to surpass the longest-reigning monarch of a micro-state in Europe (and longest overall), but we've already said that Bernhard VII shouldn't be treated any differently for only being the monarch of a micro-state so it's an irrelevent point to make. Burbridge92 (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was kidding. Br.locke (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of a range of dates for our second table: I feel that this would exacerbate the problem and would look like a mess. Technically, if Wilhelm IV of Henneberg-Schleusingen was listed as 79-80, or 78-79, or 78-80, that would include a huge number of possible days' overlap that would overcompensate for the "unknown" of writing simply "79 years" as we have it. Note that it's not "years/days" here, just "years". The other problem is that all of our "50 years" might actually look questionable (49-51), whereas a good many of them are probably there on good account (not that we'll ever know for sure who's a 49 and who's a 50). My vote is to leave it as is. If more info is forthcoming, we can rejoice in placing them into table 1. Br.locke (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's take the example that you used: Wilhelm IV. Firstly, given the years that his reign has been given, he can only have reigned for either 78 or 79 years because from 1480 to 1559 there is 79 years and if his reign began on January 1st 1480 and ended on December 31st 1559 it would have been 79 years, 364 days long, so if we were to label him by the total amount of years he could have reigned for we would put 78-79. Now, the problem which you have suggested is that there will be a huge amount of days overlapping, and naturally this will effect the table's ranking system, but the table's ranking system isn't correct to our knowledge anyway. For example, there are five monarchs with a given reign of 70 years due to the years which that their reigns span from. We have no knowledge of whether these five monarchs are ranked in the right order, and furthermore, some of them may have reigned for a shorter period of time than the monarchs who are listed as having reigned for 69 years (due to the possibility that they didn't reach the anniversary of their reign in the final year), and this problem extends to those who are listed as having a reign of 71 years, as they may have reigned for only 70 years and for shorter amounts of time than some of the monarchs listed as having a reign of 70 years. In short: The whole table is already a mess of fallacious and unproven ranking. The second table would be more accurate if its reign length column looked more like the one for the List of shortest reigning monarchs of all time, where given reigns which are subject to possible dispute are marked as being approximations with a "~". Burbridge92 (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

How's this for a compromise: rather than add a range of years/days and try to put them into "rankings", can we add a note at the beginning that states that "These monarchs are grouped according to length of reign by year in whole numbers. Within each year-grouping, they appear in historical order. In a given year, there may have been a wide array of actual reign lengths based on days. As such, this table does not present a pure ranking of monarchs." What say you? Br.locke (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a great idea. At the end of the day it doesn't matter how we make the point as long as it's clear that the second table is by no means an accurately ranked table, as we do not have the information with which to know that we are ranking the monarchs correctly. If we did have that information, they would be located in the first table rather than the second. I just think it's worthy to note that in all cases it's impossible to know what order to rank the monarchs in due to the lack of information regarding specific dates and that they could (and probably are) in the wrong order in many places. The disputed reigns open up another can of worms altogether as there are far more reign lengths that they could have had, due to the actual years of reign being disputable (but for now they should remain in this table due to their only being three of them). Burbridge92 (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Potential issues with calculation system

It has dawned on me that there may be a problem with how the reigns are being calculated.

The following link shows what Heinrich XI's reign would have been had his kingdom converted to the Gregorian calendar at the same time as the UK:

http://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?d1=17&m1=03&y1=1723&d2=28&m2=06&y2=1800

Note how 11 days have been cut from his actual reign, which is (as far as I'm aware) correctly listed in the table. However, the point I am making is that at some point in history every country in Europe would have converted calendar from Julian to Gregorian, and some compensation would have had to have been made (as the differences between the link and Heinrich XI's row of the table clearly show, conversion did not all happen at once). So we are left with four potential questions:

1. Do the templates make up for when each country converted calendar (i.e. from Julian days to Gregorian days), removing the adequate amount of days from the reign of whichever monarch happened to be on the throne in that country at that time?

2. If the answer to the last question is "no", do the templates only record using the Gregorian calendar system?

3. If the answer to the last question is "no", do we know at which point does the template start calculating days according to the Gregorian calendar as opposed to the previous method? Furthermore do we know what the previous method is (probably Julian)?

4. If the answer to the second or third question is "yes", have the reign dates been recalculated (if necessary) to make up for this?

• If the answer to the first question is "yes" then all of the other questions can be disregarded and there is no problem, as all of the reigns will be calculated correctly regardless of the different calendar systems used. Unfortunately I don't believe the templates ask for enough information for this to be possible (they only ask for start and end dates of the reign).
• If the answer to the first question is "no" or "don't know", and the answer to the second AND third question is "no" or "don't know" then there's a strong chance that our results could be incorrect, and it's impossible to know whether compensation for possible errors in the templates has been made.
• If the answer to the first question is "no", the answer to the second OR third question is "yes", and the answer to the fourth question is also "yes", then there is no problem as any issues with the templates have been compensated for.

One thing is for certain: The templates are not working to when the UK converted from Julian days to Gregorian days (as the web link's contradiction to monarchs reigning at the time of the 11-day gap in September 1752 clearly shows).

Can anyone verify that either:

A. All dates are converted to fit the calendar by which the templates make the measurements OR

B. The calculation templates compensate for the calendar differences?

If either of the above can be verified (and hopefully someone who knows more than me on the subject can verify this), the problem does not exist. If not, we may have to do a rethink how we portray this information, because a sizeable portion of the table is going to contain incorrect information. Burbridge92 (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh?? Br.locke (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Basically what I'm saying is our ranking system could be wrong in the first table. I presume you understand that different calendar systems were used in different countries at different stages in history? Such as the Julian calendar, which used to be the calendar used in Europe, which was replaced by the Gregorian calendar which is now the standard calendar that everyone uses? Well, the templates that we use to calculate the length of reign don't appear to take calendar differences into account, they're too simplistic. This means that the calculated reign lengths may be wrong because they're calculated using the wrong calendar system. In most cases it shouldn't make too much of a difference, but there will be a difference.

For example, Bernhard VII's reign is currently calculated by the Gregorian calendar, the calendar which (I presume, I don't know for a fact, we can't be sure without additional research) is the only calendar taken into consideration by the templates which calculate years/days and pure days. However, the Gregorian calendar wasn't introduced until 71 years after the end of Bernhard VII's reign, so if his reign is calculated in Gregorian days then the length we have is wrong.

I brought up this problem on the discussion page for the longest reigning British monarchs aswell, and someone else has noticed the problem and has suggested that it may be even more complex than I've suggested it is. He directed me to this: Wikipedia talk:Age calculation templates#Possible widespread distribution of bad data based on age-calc templates. Take a look. Burbridge92 (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I do understand the principle, but I'm not worrying about the logistics of it because (a) it seems to be a universal problem, not just ours, and (b) "our ranking system" was introduced by you in the first place, on your initiative. I was happy enough with years/days.  :-) So I'm happy if/when you're happy; if you find a solution, even if you end up calculating each year on an abacus and change a listing here or there, be my guest... Br.locke (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The fact that it's a "universal problem" doesn't change the fact that it is a very real problem, and the ranking system which I suggested never addressed this problem, but the problem with regards to leap years messing up the calculation of a monarch's reign. The two issues aren't mutually exclusive. I would have been happy with years/days if it gave us accurate results, and I would be happy with the templates if they gave us accurate results based on the different calendar systems. The issue to recognise is that this calculation issue could mean that our ranking is wrong, just as the previous issue caused a flaw with the results, and if the table does not give the monarchs reigns' in the correct order then what is the point in the table? This page's existence in its current format is futile if the system is wrong (and the only other system I could think of would be to order them alphabetically, which certainly doesn't appear appropriate on a page with numeric values such as this one). With regards to fixing the problem, I fully acknowledge that it is complex and may not be something that is easily remedied. I've mentioned it purely because it almost certainly is a problem on this page and must be something that we're aware of in case a perfect solution is ever found. Burbridge92 (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth II (different lengths of reign)

It has been pointed out that Elizabeth II, as listed on this page, has only been the monarch of four nations for the 59 years and 190 days that she qualifies for the list by (United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). The necessary edit has been made to represent this, and as such all is fine for now.

However, Elizabeth II is the monarch of 12 other nations beside those already listed, nations which gained their independence from the United Kingdom after her reign as monarch began. She will have been queen of one of these nations (Jamaica) for 50 years as of August 6th 2012. As all monarchs that have reigned for 50 years or more are eligible for entry onto the table this leaves us with a problem, as does this mean we should enter Elizabeth II into the list twice (and more times once her reign over other nations meets 50 years, supposing that they do)?

I would argue that duplicate entries for a monarch in the table is unnecessary, however, Elizabeth II's different length of reign in other nations should be recognised. I propose that, when she has been the monarch of Jamaica for 50 years, that a footnote connected to her row of the table could give her different length of reign in other countries that she has reigned over for more than 50 years. Burbridge92 (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

All the monarchies of the Commonwealth Realms are legally defined as individual and unattached to the other possessions of the Queen. As such, it seems most diminishing to the other realms to leave them as footnotes as if they were territories of the UK, Canada etc. --George2001hi (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

So is that to suggest that the duplication of the Queen's presence in the table is correct? SAULGNRFAN (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest an extra possible solution. We simply change the countries into "The Commonwealth Realms". Though this would not be accurate for all the realms. I suggest it as a possibility, but I don't think it is the best solution. The most accurate answer would be to have separate entries for each country, since she is the monarch of each in their own right and not because of right over just the oldest 4 realms. Her right as Queen in Jamaica, for example, is completely unrelated to her right as Queen anywhere else. And although there are historical and personal connections they are separate and I believe they should be recognised as such.

In addition, though I see that this has just been edited by George2001hi, the old version that included the British Overseas Territories and the Commonwealth Realms as separate countries should certainly not be included on the list of countries. All the commonwealth realms were mentioned already and the BOTs are not independent countries in their own right and the list would start getting silly, because we'd have to add the Australian and New Zealander territories and the Crown Dependencies as separate countries and the Queen is not Queen (or Lord/Duke) in right of those territories or Crown Dependencies, but is Queen/Lord/Duke because of their association with the parent country or because the title has merged into the Monarch of the UK's title. Colwolyoung (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. I think the best thing to do would be to have "Commonwealth Realms" under "Country" for Elizabeth II, and then link to a footnote which gives the specific realms which she has reigned over for more than 50 years (with the length of time she has reigned for). This edit does not need to be made until it becomes an issue in August 2012. This way we don't have multiple entries for Elizabeth II like there is on the page Current reigning monarchs by length of reign. Burbridge92 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

---

List of longest reigning monarchs of all time → List of longest-reigning monarchs – "of all time" is not needed--that's not how we name pages on Wikipedia. There is no History of Algeria until now or List of jazz albums so far. Don't get hung up on the hyphen: if it's considered poor typography, then omit it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Agree with nom that "of all time" is unnecessary. Neutral on the hyphen. Jenks24 (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Agree that "all time" is unnecessary. I also agree that it should be "longest-reigning", otherwise it could refer to a list of currently reigning monarchs over 6 feet tall. (note: joke) 109.154.79.227 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree, however I only wish to maintain the status quo due to the fact that the title List of longest-reigning monarchs without of all time added at the end would not suffice, due to a similarly titled page for List of longest reigning current monarchs. If a different name for the page was to be suggested then I would alter my decision with regards to the name change. Burbridge92 (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I agree with the idea that we should be able to lable this page as List of longest-reigning monarchs as the title suggests a broad overview page, which is what this is. However, if you were to type in List of longest reigning monarchs into Wikipedia right now and search it would come up with a page which links to both this one and the current monarchs' page. I'm interested to know why this page has been labled as such in the first place. If there's no particular reason why it was set up like that then I have no problem with changing the name to the one suggested, and removing the page that links to the two separate length pages altogether (they link to each other anyway). In fact, the current-reigning monarch page isn't even labled the way suggested on that link page. I don't think it will be an issue to simplify the current title. Therefore I am retracting my original vote and now Agree.Burbridge92 (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Agree: although I've been helping to maintain this page for years, I've never thought about it at all. Obviously it was originally to differentiate from "current". I suggest that we simplify the name, but amend the other pages' links as discussed above. If, after a time, we find that people are getting confused and complaining in the talk page, we can readdress the situation. Br.locke (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Longest-reigning" or "Longest reigning"

I have no problem with the hyphen being present in the title but I'm wondering whether a different page move is generally considered possible and/or whether the deletion of the page "List of longest reigning monarchs" (i.e. not this page) is appropriate.

On that page there is links to this page and Current reigning monarchs by length of reign. The reason for that page existing is given as the following:

"This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title."

This is because the "Current reigning monarchs" page used to be titled "List of longest reigning current monarchs", which is similar to the title of this page. However, the decision to change the name of that page came a while back and since then there is not two pages with the same title. This would make the disambiguation page unnecessary (hence why I'm asking if it could be deleted).

If (in the case that it is deleted) people decide they don't like the use of the hyphen in the title of the article then this page could be moved to "List of longest-reigning monarchs". Burbridge92 (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Obi Agbogidi Olo-ome Alfred Okolie 1

Obi Agbogidi Olo-ome Alfred Okolie 1 has been placed in the table and currently ranks as the longest-reigning monarch that is presently reigning, yet his page has no functioning links for verifiable content, and I can't find any conclusive proof of his longevity online. Under the circumstances do we leave him in the table or do we remove him until conclusive evidence is discovered? SAULGNRFAN (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As we have no proof: he should be left out of the table until such time when we can find a reliable source. --George2001hi (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Other monarchs

What about emperor Suinin (he reigned from 29 bc - 70 ad, 99 years) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.190.124.245 (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You're entitled to add him. However, seeing as his length of reign is speculated with no exact reign dates he must be included in the second table rather than the first. Burbridge92 (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth II footnote

I noticed that someone had edited the "country" for Elizabeth II to "Commonwealth Realms", which has been removed before due to the fact that Elizabeth II has not ruled over all of the Commonwealth Realms for an equal period of time (due to the fact that many of them had not gained independence from the UK at the time that her reign began). Rather than undo the edit, I have added a footnote explaining that the reign length in the table only represents a few countries in the Commonwealth (the ones listed in the table before: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). I have done this because (as mentioned in previous conversations) Elizabeth II's reign over other Commonwealth nations will begin to reach the 50 year criteria for inclusion (starting with Jamaica later this year, as we can assume it will not become a republic before then), and accommodation of these reigns would require additional slots in the table unless a different solution is found. If anyone disapproves of this footnote coming into play before it is necessary, or has a differing idea as to how to handle the issue, then please feel free to undo my edit and the previous edit and maintain the status quo. Kind regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

To further elaborate, under the current scheme new reigns could be simply added with bulletpoints under the main point about Elizabeth II's longest reign (i.e. the one shown in table) only being over the four previously mentioned states. So when, on August 6, 2012, Elizabeth II's reign over independent Jamaica has reached 50 years, the current note is extended to state something along the lines of: "Elizabeth II has also reigned over the following states for more than 50 years:" and then... "Jamaica (from August 6, 1962): Number of years and days (number of days). Burbridge92 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Raj from 1858" edits

This is a bit misleading: the reorganization of the British presence from HEIC to direct Crown control after the Sepoy Mutiny was not the commencement of external power over the affected states. Perhaps their individual histories should be checked for whether the listed monarchs had ever had control over their external affairs.LE (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Numbers in each section.

Since the list was recently divided between Sovereign monarchs and constituent monarchs, how many should go in each section? Should each section have the same number of entries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:E4A2:51BE:C517:1F72 (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Age at accession is an enormously useful thing to add

The following discussion 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.

---

How many of the people on the list were actually children at accession and thus did not functionally reign is a very good thing to add. My compliments to the person who added it, and my regrets that GoodDay did not appreciate this incredibly valuable improvement. LE (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

This article deals with their reigns, irregardless of when they were minors. GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Whether a reign was nominal or functional is of great practical importance. Readers are better informed than uninformed. LE (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggest you make this into an Rfc, for more input. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

How does one go about this? LE (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Like this (see below)

Should we add the age of monarchs at the time of their accession? GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is a fair idea, people who are interested in the length of a reign are probably also interested in the ages too. A monarch who acceeded as a baby and reigned until age 52 is not the same as one who acceeded at age 30 and lived to 81. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment : The title itself is problematic. The adjective "long" is in its superlative form ("longest"), so it denotes perforce only one item: that which is the longest at whatever is described by the adjective. There is only one monarch who is the longest reigning one in their country. Therefore, it can only be a list of those monarchs who ruled the longest in every country that ever had a monarchy. Anything else is inexact. It cannot be a list of longest reigning monarchs in the world, since that would entail arbitrary, personal choices (e.g. "100"). -The Gnome (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think the naming is fine, many other articles use similar wording, like List of longest bridges, which has 6 of the top 10 from the same country. Emk9 (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

What you are saying is that other titles are similary inexact. The fact that other bad stuff exists in Wikipedia is not a valid argument. The title is misleading in its vagueness. -The Gnome (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• If I may. The Rfc question is "Should we add the age of monarchs at the time of their accession?" Example: age 25, for Elizabeth II of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I made a tangential comment. Not a suggestion for the RfC. That is all. Since you're considering changes to the article, I believe it's fair to look at one of its important features: the title, which is related to the issue of age, as well. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@The Gnome: If you want the title changed put in an WP:RM with what you want the new title to be עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Seems useful. Wouldn't take up too much space (1-2 characters if just age in years).Icewhiz (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per Icewhiz, briefly (age in years) is useful 'background'. What is the argument for not doing so? Pincrete (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - not the topic of the list, and only a sometimes oddity. Given the table is already 7 columns, seems busy enough with things that always matter and should not go down to a sometimes oddity. The hypothesis of indicator of nominal vs putative seems unsupported by RS and age not mentioned by many RS usages, so think this one should not be added. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Summoned by a bot. If I were interested in the topic, I find the information being proposed relevant to my hypothetical research. Seems useful to me! Comatmebro (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Not counting the original editor-adder or myself on the yes side or GoodDay on the no side, it appears we are 4-1 in favor of addition? LE (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Doesn't really seem relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:7481:2FA9:65F6:15AE (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2019 (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.

Palenque was a sovereign state?

Was Palenque a sovereign state? GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why it wouldn't be, it meets all the criteria of the Montevideo Convention. Emk9 (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Saluzzo

Ludovico I, Marquess of Saluzzo is listed in the Sovereign monarchs section, but it also says in the table that Saluzzo was part of the Holy Roman Empire. Should he be moved to the Dependent or constituent monarchs section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:8CCF:ECDD:4F5F:C078:B33A (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

IMHO, he should be moved. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Moved him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:8CCF:B80D:6F84:F1FB:133F (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Numbering

The page lists the top 100 longest reigning monarchs. Yet the Sovereign monarchs section has 25 entries, while the Dependent or constituent monarchs section has 74 entries, which together would only add up to 99. Is separating the monarchs on this basis necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:A53B:E5B4:AB26:9925 (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Update: I've renumbered first section as 25 & the next scetion as 75? Due to 26 & 74, appearing awkward. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Are the section numbers fixed at 25 and 75 or are they subject to change depending on who qualifies for the list? For example when there are 26 people on the sovereign list that have reigned longer than #75 on the depends list, would the dependent monarchs list drop to 74 people so that there will be 100 overall? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:89D9:9893:3DA2:3B3E (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The sections are separate & so it's fixed at 25 & 75. Always will be Top-25 in sovereign states & Top-75 in non-sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Should the lede be adjusted to state that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:F518:BFB4:DFFD:1DF7 (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Not necessary. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

WHY should the less-important non-sovereign states always be entitled to 75 slots even if numerous sovereign state rulers outlast them? LE (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

There are more of them/they are not always as obvious as the sovereign states (more people have heard of the British Queen than the King of Man or Duke of Normandy).

Besides - given the nature of the office there are likely to be long gaps between new entries. From List of current monarchs of sovereign states there are four monarchs in the 45-57 years' reigns group, then it drops to 30 years and most of the remainder are significantly less. There is a case for a 50 years+ boundary rather than an absolute number of 100, and/or a category 'Golden Jubilee-achieving monarchs (and Diamond, Platinum 'and beyond').' 89.197.114.196 (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The non-sovereign monarchs are less notable and should thus be prepared to cede slots if sovereigns outlast them. The list previously extended to all 50-year reigns and was of an unwieldy size and I'm in accord with maintaining a common minimum length. "Jubilees" are a matter of custom (some countries go in for big celebrations and others don't and eras differ in their attitudes toward such as well) and should not be considered in a list based on a reign's length. LE (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

So how many monarchs (sovereign or non-sovereign) having held that role for 50+ years are there? Would a category or several (60+, 70+ and '80+') be appropriate? There would be more uses than for 'puzzle setters of various kinds' (which is one of the uses of WP in general). 89.197.114.196 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Prior to the list being limited to 100, there were 201 entries with more than 50 years, plus 205 in the section where exact dates are unknown. Since then Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei has also passed 50 years on the throne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:51C9:6441:FC31:7B57 (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

IMHO, the list should be limited to sovereign state monarchs, with a top-25 list. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

25 feels too small, especially as within a year we will likely have one person taking two of the slots.LE (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Who? SCAH (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth as Queen of Jamaica has reigned 56 years, 231 days, so she will past James VI in a year and 15 days. Emk9 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Given that there are 'about 400 rulers' (allowing for ambiguities and joint rules etc) who have reached at least 50 years in office and the number will rise very slowly for obvious reasons, would a category suffice (to help puzzle setters, the (theoretical) 'Royalist Wikipedia Main Page' event and others) suffice? 89.197.114.196 (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult, to keep the numbering as 25 & 75? GoodDay (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Because there isn't consensus to do that Emk9 (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I forgot. You own this page. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@LE: @SCAH: I don't see anybody agreeing to limit it to 25 and 75 in this section. I don't agree with it either, and apparently 2601:241:301:8ccf:6407:78f9:4caa:74d3, which I assume is the same person as 2601:241:300:C930:51C9:6441:FC31:7B57 doesn't agree. Without consensus, I don't think leaving blank spots makes sense.(oops, I forgot to sign) Emk9 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Given the relatively small number of 'monarchs and equivalents' (even if 'heirs to defunct thrones', Conclavist Popes, persons inheriting or reincarnating religious leaderships, self-defined royals and 'various assorted others' are included) probably a matter of 'whatever suits Wikipedia, royalist info-geeks and quiz-setters' - which may include a 'reigned 50+ years' category. (It will be a long time yet before the category reaches 450 members - and is it against WP policy to hope that the figure is eventually reached?). 89.197.114.196 (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt

Should Friedrich Günther, Prince of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt be moved to the constituent monarchs section, as his principality was part of the German Confederation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.209.29.11 (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The German Confederation isn't considered a parent state the way the Holy Roman Empire was.12.144.5.2 (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Lede sentence "Currently reigning monarchs are highlighted" uses plural incorrectly.

The lede said "Currently reigning monarchs are highlighted.", but currently, there is only one, so it should be "Currently reigning monarch is highlighted." I know how to edit it manually as a permanent change, but I don't know how to automate it to toggle automatically when the number changes. Can someone do this?47.139.47.237 (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

it is not incorrect it's a rule for the page so even were QE2 to die it would still say it. 148.77.10.25 (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

IF they were to live that long (may they do so) when would the next currently reigning entrants appear on this list? 89.197.114.196 (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth II as Queen of Jamaica will appear in around 200 days, and then again as Queen of Barbados in another 4 years. A bit under a year later, Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei would join. Emk9 (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced and irellevant note

In connection with Hirohito (#12 on the list), I've removed the part of the note saying: "Constitutional status as a monarch or head of state undefined in the 1947 constitution of Japan.". Article 4, 6 & 7 in the constitution of Japan explains wich functions the emperor have within the constitution of the nation. This role hardly differs from the role of most other constitutional monarcs of the world, so in this regard it dosen't make the emperors position exeptional or different in comparison. That the emperor isn't supreme commander of the armed forces dosen't seem to be valid argument for not considering him as the head of state acoording to constitution. Valid independent juridical sources that clearly describes the emperor as not being head of state is needed, if a note like the one removed shall have any relevance in an encyclopedic sence. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

They may be considered a de facto head of state, but they are not formally defined as a head of state in the 1947 constitution despite the ceremonial functions. That their "role hardly differs" is irrelevant. There's nothing "irrelevant" in mentioning the important fact that Japan has no formally defined monarch or head of state.

Japan is not formally a monarchy since 1945/1952, because unlike actual monarchies, the 1947 japanese constitution doesn't in any way define the "state of Japan" as being a monarchy, or having a monarch (君主), sovereign　(元首), or indeed any head of state, while also explicitly defining the people as sovereign and the prime minister as the chief executive. This is especially important because the preceding "Meiji constitution" explicitly defined the country as a monarchy and the tennou as a sovereign and supreme authority. The tennou after 1945 is best understood as a hereditary religious figure, a chief priest if you will, rather than a monarch.

"Valid independent juridical sources that clearly describes the emperor as not being head of state is needed"

On the contrary, you should explain how someone who is not defined as a monarch or head of state is nonetheless a monarch or a head of state. In Japan, there is generally an agreement that the definition of the tennou as only a "symbol" (象徴) also defines them as not a monarch　(君主) or head of state/sovereign　(元首). Many japanese constitutional experts consider Japan to not have a formal head of state. Countries don't need a head of state, for that matter. 62.248.181.187 (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's look at *actual* constitutional monarchies:

Kingdom of Denmark

"The form of government shall be that of a constitutional monarchy. The Royal Power shall be inherited by men and women in accordance with the provisions of the Succession to the Throne Act, 27th March, 1953."

"The legislative power shall be vested in the King and the Folketing conjointly. The executive power shall be vested in the King. The judicial power shall be vested in the courts of justice."

"Subject to the limitations laid down in this Constitution Act the King shall have the supreme authority in all the affairs of the Realm, and he shall exercise such supreme authority through the Ministers."

"The King shall not be answerable for his actions; his person shall be sacrosanct. The Ministers shall be responsible for the conduct of the government; their responsibility shall be determined by Statute."

Kingdom of Norway

"The Kingdom of Norway is a free, independent, indivisible and inalienable Realm. Its form of government is a limited and hereditary monarchy."

"The Executive Power is vested in the King, or in the Queen if she has succeeded to the Crown pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 or Article 7 or Article 48 of this Constitution. When the Executive Power is thus vested in the Queen, she has all the rights and obligations which pursuant to this Constitution and the Law of the Land are possessed by the King."

"The King's person is sacred; he cannot be censured or accused. The responsibility rests with his Council."

Kingdom of Sweden

"The King or Queen who occupies the throne of Sweden in accordance with the Act of Succession shall be the Head of State."

"The King or Queen who is Head of State cannot be prosecuted for his or her actions. Nor can a Regent be prosecuted for his or her actions as Head of State."

Kingdom of the Netherlands

"The King shall be President of the Council of State. The heir presumptive shall be legally entitled to have a seat on the Council on attaining the age of eighteen. Other members of the Royal House may be granted a seat on the Council by or in accordance with an Act of Parliament."

"The members of the Council shall be appointed for life by Royal Decree."

"A Bill shall become an Act of Parliament once it has been passed by the States General and ratified by the King."

"The Government shall comprise the King and the Ministers."

"The Ministers, and not the King, shall be responsible for acts of government."

"State Secretaries may be appointed and dismissed by Royal Decree."

Kingdom of Belgium

"The federal legislative power is exercised jointly by the King, the House of Representatives and the Senate."

"The federal executive power, as regulated by the Constitution, belongs to the King."

"The King has the right to convene the Houses to an extraordinary meeting."

"The King can adjourn the Houses. However, the adjournment cannot be for longer than one month, nor can it be repeated in the same session without the consent of the Houses."

Kingdom of Spain

"The political form of the Spanish State is the Parliamentary Monarchy."

"The King is the Head of State, the symbol of its unity and permanence. He arbitrates and moderates the regular functioning of the institutions, assumes the highest representation of the Spanish State in international relations, especially with the nations of its historical community, and exercises the functions expressly conferred on him by the Constitutionand the laws."

"The person of the King is inviolable and shall not be held accountable. His acts shall always be countersigned in the manner established in section 64. Without such countersignature they shall not be valid, except as provided under section 65(2)."

"The King freely appoints and dismisses civil and military members of his Household"

62.248.181.187 (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The first thing you get wrong - again and again - is, that statements or judgements like this needs one or more independent reliable source to support it. Without such sources, it becomes the editors point of wiev, that is reflected, and not the point of wiev of the sources.

Well, what is the function of the emperor then? We can read some of it like this:

"He also meets with visiting royals and heads of state, receives foreign ambassadors and envoys, and meets all Japanese ambassadors and spouses before they move to their posts overseas." (from Nippon.com: Japan’s Emperor and Imperial Family). This is traditionally functions, that in every nation falls upon the shoulders of "the head of state".

And how should the words "the symbol of the State" be conceived? In practial sence, and looking upon the way the monarch of Japan perfom his duties, this would be more or less equivalent to the function "head of state", but granted the constitution dosen't use the words "head of state" (for historical reasons).

And as it happens, I have found a source, that adress this question. In New York Times from 1995 we can read about the emperor: »Who Is This Guy, Really? "When we need a head of state, then we bring the Emperor out," explained another. "So he's head of state when we need a host for a state visit. But he's not really head of state."« (from The New York Times: THE WORLD;Japan's State Symbols: Now You See Them . . . (Nov. 12, 1995)).

Therefore my sugestion could be, that we write like this in the note: Status as head of state not formally defined in the 1947 constitution of Japan, but the emperor of Japan can act as a head of state, whenever needed. [and then The New York Times article as source]

About "Tennō", I'm no expert but Tennō Heika ("天皇陛下") is frequently used and is equivalent to "His Majesty the Emperor", alone on Google we can find "天皇陛下" used more than 16 millions times! So a monarch and a Majesty the emperor is, but whether he IS or IS NOT the head of state of Japan or perhaps that he only is "head of state" whenever the function is needed that is a matter for discussion and interpretation. And as for the titles used for the monarch of Japan we can se, that the titles His Majesty, His Majesty the Emperor Emeritus and Her Majesty as well as Their Majesties the Emperor and Empress is expressly used on the official homepage for The Imperial Household Agency, so that matter seem rather well sourced. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

So be it then, I agree to your proposal. I think it would also be worth mentioning their status as a subordinate of the Supreme Commander for the Allies Powers 1945-1952, since that can reasonably be considered a kind of break in any "reign". By most contemporary and modern definitions of a state, such as that of the Montevideo convention, "occupied Japan" wasn't a state and thus didn't have an officially recognized head of state. 62.248.181.187 (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

We don't consider the German occupation of Norway as a break in the "reign" of Harald VII of Norway either. Even if the status as a subordinate of the Supreme Commander is interesting, I think we should leave this for the article about the emperor himself - this is merely a list of some cases of long reigns (from the accesion to the throne and until their death or abdication) and I think it would be to go a little to far to 'discus' matters like that in the notes - he did after all fulfill his functions as emperor all the years no matter how these funtions changed over time. I've made the change needed. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Norway was both in possession of territories outside the occupied homeland and internationally recognized, with the king and government in exile. A slightly better comparison could perhaps be made with Denmark, but even there, there are very important differences: the germans officially recognized the king as a head of state and were officially represented by an ambassador, parts of the danish military remained active, and the germans didn't formally usurp all executive, legislative, and judicial powers. Even after the germans did formally occupy the country, it still possessed overseas territories and remained internationally recognized. 62.248.181.187 (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The Emperor is the de facto head of state, if not what else is the Emperor supposed to be? The Constitution of Japan doesn't explicitly spell it out, but a lot of constitutions of other countries do not too! A great example is the Constitution of India, plainly spelling it out "There shall be a President of India." without formal references to the President as head of state. 115.66.203.56 (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The article on the *constitution* of Japan should tell the reader what the *constitution* says de jure. The tennou is more a religious figure than a head of state with the 1947 constitution.

Your argument seems to be based on the idea that because the tennou is called "emperor" in english, that somehow makes them unambiguously a head of state. If that is the case, why do constitutional monarchies, including the japanese empire (大日本帝國) (-1945), explicitly define the king/emperor etc as a head of state among other things?

The japanese use separate terms for emperor (皇帝) and the tennou　(天皇); the latter can be literally translated as "heavenly emperor" etc, but it really evokes a religious sense more than an authoritarian or monarchical one, especially in modern Japan. 62.248.181.187 (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hirohito clearly belongs to the second list, as they were obviously not "fully sovereign over their territory" after 2 September 1945

Hirohito was officially subordinate to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers from the surrender of Japan on 2 September 1945 until the Treaty of San Francisco came into effect on 28 April 1952. The allies had official sovereignty over the former japanese territory ("occupied Japan") for that period. Furthermore, *as already discussed* it's clear that Hirohito was not a "sovereign monarch" by the 1947 constitution, and perhaps not officially a head of state at all.

Therefore I propose moving Hirohito to the second list of those who were "not fully sovereign over their territory for at least part of their reign" and adding an appropriate mention about the occupation to the note.

If disagreeing, please explain how Hirohito was a "sovereign monarch" "fully sovereign over their territory" after 2 September 1945 all the way to 1989.

62.248.181.187 (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Historians disagree with you, as he's recognized as emperor of Japan from 1926 to 1989. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Are there historians who consider Hirohito a "sovereign monarch with full sovereignty over their territory" after 1945? I don't believe that and want to see some examples. Just because their title is this or that doesn't make them automatically a sovereign monarch and especially not "fully sovereign over their territory". They belong clearly to the second list unless very good opposing arguments are presented and not "they are called emperor, duh". Japan is not an empire since 1945.

What about the fact that the instrument of surrender directly subjected the entire country and Hirohito to Allied authority indefinitely?

Furthermore, as per the 1947 constitution, the people are officially sovereign and the tennou mere national "symbols", not rulers.

So, since this article has one list for "fully sovereign monarchs" and another for those "not fully sovereign over their territory for at least part of their reign", I still propose that Hirohito should be moved to the second, since he obviously was not fully sovereign over any territory by the terms of the japanese instrument of surrender or by the 1947 constitution.

62.248.181.187 (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I've made this discussion into an Rfc for more input, as we aren't going to be in agreement. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

No offense but your argument is literally "they're called emperor, duh". 62.248.181.187 (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Nope. RS recognize him as one of the longest serving monarchs and Emperor until 1989. The MacArthur approach of indirect rule during the occupation made it essential that he remained Emperor, the head of state, and that local government remained in place. MacArthur made “suggestions” and “advice” that made massive changes, but MacArthur did not depose him. You might reflect that as kings within an empire are still kings, or the Queen of a Constitutional Monarchy remains a Queen, or the kings of occupied countries even in exile remained the sovereign monarch, Hirohito can still be the sovereign just because that’s the label by which he was referred to. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The instrument of surrender directly says that the authority of the emperor and government are subject to the Allies. The Allies held the supreme executive, legislative, and judicial authority over "occupied Japan". As a subordinate of the Allies, Hirohito cannot be reasonably considered a "fully sovereign monarch" with "full sovereignty over their territories" after the surrender of Japan on 2 September 1945. They weren't deposed as tennou, but they were divested of their sovereign status and authority by both the instrument of surrender which made them a subordinate of the Allies, and the 1947 constitution by which the people are sovereign and the tennou their symbol.

Also, "occupied Japan" was not a sovereign state by basically any contemporary or modern definition of a state.

Point-by-point:

"The MacArthur approach of indirect rule during the occupation made it essential that he remained Emperor, the head of state, and that local government remained in place."

As per the instrument of surrender, the emperor and the local government were officially subordinate to MacArthur.

"MacArthur made “suggestions” and “advice” that made massive changes, but MacArthur did not depose him"

MacArthur chose a relatively soft style, but he and the Allies had supreme executive, legislative, and judicial authority over "occupied Japan". It's irrelevant that Hirohito "wasn't deposed" as tennou; as a subordinate of the Allies they obviously didn't have full sovereignty and official authority over the territory.

"kings within an empire are still kings"

Such kings belong to the second list of the article, because they aren't fully sovereign.

"the Queen of a Constitutional Monarchy remains a Queen"

In all actual constitutional monarchies, the country is defined or referred to as a monarchy and/or a monarch is defined as the head of state. However, the 1947 japanese constitution does not define a head of state, and says the people are sovereign and the tennou their national symbol.

"the kings of occupied countries even in exile remained the sovereign monarch"

Kings in exile still often possessed overseas territories, and were not officially subordinate to foreign authority, unlike Hirohito.

"Hirohito can still be the sovereign just because that’s the label by which he was referred to"

They were not fully sovereign because their authority was officially subject to the Allies as per the instrument of surrender from 1945 until 1952, after which the people are officially sovereign and the tennou a national symbol by the 1947 constitution.

Please elaborate how Hirohito supposedly somehow remained "fully sovereign" while being officially a subordinate of foreign powers and then a "symbol" of a sovereign people.

62.248.181.187 (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's consider the origins of the current dispute:

The article originally had a single list of "monarchs" of various kinds both with and without verifiable reigns by exact date.

In 2011, "after a few years of discussion", the single list was divided in two lists, one of "monarchs with verifiable reigns by exact date", and another one of "monarchs whose exact dates of rule are unknown". I was familiar with the article in this form.

Then, in late 2018, the list of "monarchs with verifiable reigns by exact date" was *without discussion* divided into "sovereign" monarchs and "dependent or constituent" monarchs, with users choosing *without discussion* which monarchs to include in which list; this resulted in an about 25-75 split, and then the current 23-77.

The second list is supposed to consist of, as the article says, monarchs who were "not fully sovereign over their territory for at least part of their reign."

Although I generally agree that separating the "sovereign" and "non-sovereign" ones might be a good idea, I am very much of the opinion that Hirohito belongs solidly to the second category. Hirohito was obviously "not fully sovereign over their territory for at least part of their reign", since they were both officially subject to the Allies as per the instrument of surrender from 2 September 1945 until 28 April 1952, and afterwards a national "symbol" (not even formal head of state) under the sovereignty of the people under the 1947 constitution. They were a sovereign monarch from 1926 to 1945, and a non-sovereign unofficial "monarch" from 1945 or 1952 to 1989. Even if they were continuously "some kind of monarch", by the standards of this article, they cannot be reasonably considered a "fully sovereign" monarch for the entirety of the "reign" for the aforementioned reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.248.181.187 (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, 62.248.181.187 is actually a sock of someone. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

In view of the last comment, and the fact that the opening statement is not neutral (see WP:RFCBRIEF), I have deactivated this RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I was advised to use my account from now on. I have never edited this article or talk page before while logged in or from more than one IP address. Mnd5trm (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Since both Nicholas of Montenegro and Wilhelmina of the Netherlands are on the list of "Sovereign monarchs with verifiable reigns by exact date" (list # 1) we need stronger arguments than the ones presented to move Hirohito from list # 1 to list # 2 ("Dependent or constituent monarchs with verifiable reigns by exact date"). Oleryhlolsson (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

If none of the three belong in the list then logically shouldn't all three be moved? I support moving Nicholas I of Montenegro and Hirohito, but there are other options, such as rewording or redefining the table to the less problematic "Monarchs of sovereign states with verifiable reigns by exact date" and adding a description such as "The table below contains monarchs of states that were internationally sovereign for most of their reign."

Nicholas I of Montenegro:

Although Nicholas was a sovereign monarch of an at least partially internationally recognized sovereign state for most of his reign, Montenegro was entirely occupied by Austria-Hungary near the end of his formal reign in 1916, making the exile Nicholas only titularly a sovereign monarch of a territory for the last few years. Therefore he clearly was not "fully sovereign" over the territory for "at least a part" of his reign. On the other hand, he was not subject to foreign powers at any point despite the territory being claimed by the ottomans for the first eighteen years of his reign.

Wilhelmina of the Kingdom of the Netherlands:

Wilhelmina remained fully sovereign over Dutch overseas territories such as Curacao, Suriname etc for her entire reign, even when the Netherlands proper and even the East Indies were invaded and occupied by foreign powers. There is also formally no popular sovereignty in the Netherlands, and the style "by the Grace of God" is still used. There is no reason to move her.

Perhaps there is some kind of confusion involving the separate concepts of "sovereign monarch" and "sovereign state"; perhaps the table is intended to include even explicitly non-sovereign hereditary ceremonial figureheads of *sovereign states* but the clearly incorrect term "sovereign monarch" is mistakenly used for the entire table. The "sovereign" was added arbitrarily after the division.

Also, look at the original discussion that resulted in the table being divided in the first place a year ago:

"According to Wikipedia as well as other sources (e.g. Oxford dict), a monarch is a sovereign head of state.", said the original proponent of changes. Many other dictionaries, including Wiktionary, agree that a monarch is a "ruler", "sovereign", or at least a "head of state".

Well, here's a reliable source that directly says "Japan does not have an official head of state" by the 1947 constitution and quotes japanese government officials saying as much. The constitution explicitly defines the people as sovereign and the tennou as a "symbol" without any kind of authority. Furthermore, Hirohito was officially subject to foreign powers from 1945 to 1952. So, unless we are to reject most dictionaries as reliable references for the english language, Hirohito may not even belong in this article at all, because he only was a head of state, or "monarch" in the proper sense (or 君主/元首), from 1926 to 1945/1947. However, I'm willing to include him as long as the article doesn't directly and overly promote the false idea that he was "sovereign" to 1989.

The user who finally divided the table also said "I won't claim the knowledge to know that such and such a monarch should be in one list or the other, I took my lead from the notes on the table as it was. I'm sure discussion will continue on how to categorise particular rulers."

I modestly propose rewording or redefining the tables to the less problematic "Monarchs of sovereign states with verifiable reigns by exact date" and "Monarchs of dependent or constituent states with verifiable reigns by exact date" with appropriate descriptions such as "The table below contains monarchs of states that were internationally sovereign for most of their reign." Mnd5trm (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you the editor whose IP was blocked, three days ago? GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

So should all monarchs of states with constitutions that assert their people to be sovereign be treated as non-sovereign monarchs?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

On what dates will she 'move positions' (and is it within WP rules to hope that she does so?)? 89.197.114.196 (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

These matters are already handled by established editors. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Which actual future calendar dates will she become 5th (early next year)-longest reigning monarch? 89.197.114.196 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Stay tuned & keep watching. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

In late January but remember that the days and years + days ranks can have brief discrepancies.LE (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

She #is# likely to be the main cause of change on the page in the next few years. 89.197.114.196 (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC) As of August 24, in roughly 161 days. There is a 2-day difference between when it happens in terms of number of days and when it happens in terms of days and years. This is because she was alive for 2 more February 29's than he was.47.139.47.237 (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

So 'God willing' - she moves up a position end January 2020, early March 2020, twice in 2022 and reaches top billing in 2024 (and will be the first person to send herself a 100 years telegram a couple of years later). 89.197.114.196 (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

See WP:FORUM. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

But harmless/good-natured (and asking for specific information is within the remit of WP) - and the season of goodwill in the UK will be disrupted for the next few weeks.

The next time this is discussed should be in the run-up to QEII becoming the longest reigning monarch (which is definitely Main Page-OTD-worthy). 89.197.114.196 (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Wait until then. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

There does seem to be a discrepancy between the number of days and the number of years and days. I counted that Queen Elizabeth has reigned for seventeen 29 Februaries, whereas Franz Josef only reigned for sixteen (as 1900 was not a leap year). This means that the number of days and the number of years and days should be one day out. However, it's two days out. Does this point to an anomaly in the method of counting or is there another explanation? Michael Glass (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

That prevented me from going to sleep for quite a while! It would have taken Franz Joseph 11 more days to complete another year of reign, while Elizabeth will need 12 more days to do so. It must be about how many 30/31 day months are included in that timespan but I'm too tired now to figure out the exact month that adds the extra day ;) Studmult (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I was playing with it too, and it seemed to depend on if the years were leap years or not. So when I changed the start and end dates for both of them by one year, the difference would be 1 instead of 2. However I couldn't quite figure out why that was.happening. Emk9 (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Part of the discrepency depends on the number of leap days in which they ruled. As I am sure we all know leap days occur in years divisible by 4. Now, Elizabeth and Josef both ruled over the end of February in years divisible by 4 seventeen times. But this is where it gets interesting. Years which are divisble by 4 and 100 individually but not by 400 (such as 1700, 1800 and 1900) are not leap years to compensate for the fact that the number of days in a year is not 365.25 but closer to 365.2524 (see Leap year#Gregorian calendar for confirmation and deatils). Therefore although they ruled over the same number of Februarys in years divisible by 4, they ruled over a different number of leap days, with 1900 excluded Josef only ruled over 16 leap days where as Elizabeth ruled over 17.

The reason the difference changing when you change the year of the start of the reign is because if you add one year to each of their riengs (so they start in 1951 and 1847) would give Josef an additional leap day (29 Feb 1948, back to 17 leap days) but Elizabeth doesn't gain a leap day. Moving them the other way means that Elizabeth wouldn't have been queen on 29 Feb 1952 (so 16 leap days) but Josef doesn't lose a leap day.

However this doesn't account for the second day of difference, I am not sure where this come from.
SSSB (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've figured it out. Elizabeth is ahead in days because she has reigned for one more leap year than Franz Joseph, but he is ahead in Years and days because the year 1916 is a leap year. Emk9 (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to worry too much over. In another day or so, Liz will be ahead of Frank Joe in both categories. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Table I made while working this out

Length Days Years and days Leap years Elizabeth Franz Joseph Elizabeth Franz Joseph Elizabeth Franz Joseph Under a year (1953, 1849) 355 354 355 days 354 days 1 0 Under 4 years (1956, 1852) 1,450 1,450 3 years, 354 days 3 years, 355 days 1 1 Under 5 years (1957, 1853) 1,816 1,815 4 years, 355 days 4 years, 354 days 2 1 Under 6 years (1958, 1854) 2,181 2,180 5 years, 354 days 5 years, 354 days 2 1 Under 7 years (1959, 1855) 2,546 2,545 6 years, 354 days 6 years, 354 days 2 1 Under 8 years (1960, 1856) 2,911 2,911 7 years, 354 days 7 years, 355 days 2 2 Under 47 years (1999, 1895) 17,156 17,155 46 years, 354 days 46 years, 354 days 12 11 Under 48 years (2000, 1896) 17,521 17,521 47 years, 354 days 47 years, 355 days 12 12 Under 49 years (2001, 1897) 17,887 17,886 48 years, 355 days 48 years, 354 days 13 12 Under 50 years (2002, 1898) 18,252 18,251 49 years, 354 days 49 years, 354 days 13 12 Under 51 years (2003, 1899) 18,617 18,616 50 years, 354 days 50 years, 354 days 13 12 Under 52 years (2004, 1900) 18,982 18,981 51 years, 354 days 51 years, 354 days 13 12 Under 53 years (2005, 1901) 19,348 19,346 52 years, 355 days 52 years, 354 days 14 12 Under 54 years (2006, 1902) 19,713 19,711 53 years, 354 days 53 years, 354 days 14 12 Under 55 years (2007, 1903) 20,078 20,076 54 years, 354 days 54 years, 354 days 14 12 Under 56 years (2008, 1904) 20,443 20,442 55 years, 354 days 55 years, 355 days 14 13 Today (2020, 1916) 24,826 24,825 67 years, 354 days 67 years, 355 days 17 16

There are the same number of days between 26 January and 6 February (Queen Elizabeth) and 21 November and 2 December (Emperor Franz Joseph), however, there is a difference in the timing of the leap years. The first year of Queen Elizabeth's reign was a leap year whereas the first leap year in Franz Joseph's reign occurred in his fourth year on the throne (1852). As he reigned for almost 68 years, the last year of his reign, 1916, also was a leap year. This explains why he reigned that extra day (355 days) in his last year compared with Queen Elizabeth's 354 days. However, she had already made up that extra day in the leap year in 2016, and reigned an extra day in 2000 (a leap year) whereas 1900 was not a leap year for Emperor Franz Joseph or anyone else using the Gregorian calendar.

So that accounts for the apparent anomaly. Queen Elizabeth picked up one extra day in 2000 compared with the non leap year in 1900 for Franz Joseph. Then in his last year, Franz Joseph reigned 355 days, missing out on making it to his 68th year by 11 days because 1916 was a leap year (355+11=366). However, Queen Elizabeth, who had a leap year in 2016, had only an ordinary year in 2019-20 so she only needed to reign 354 days to get within 11 days of completing her 68th year on the throne (354+11=365).

I think this explains the apparent 2 day anomaly: one day for the missing leap year in 1900 compared with 2000, and one apparent day because the last year of Franz Joseph's reign was a leap year, and he needed to reign an extra day to get within 11 days of his 68th year on the throne. (Elizabeth, who had her leap year in 2016, needed one day less this year to get within 11 days of her 68th year on the throne.)

Therefore when it comes to comparing length of reigns (or lives), it's best to rely on the actual number of days, as years, because of the leap years, are not quite as accurate. (It also means that anyone born on 1 March 2000 or later will be one day younger when they reach 100 compared with those of us who were born after 1 March 1900 but before 1 March 2000.Michael Glass (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem is with the counter is that it doesn't include both the start date and end date in the count which it should which would correct FJ2s total to 24,826 days and 67 years 356 days and E2 to 24,828 days and 67 years 357 days, so the total is 2 days off because she has reigned one day more in her 67th year and had one more leap year as 2000 was and 1900 wasn't 148.77.10.25 (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't count both start and end dates, just one of them (either one). Consider somebody who reigned from 10 July until 19 July - that is nine days, not ten, because 19-10=9. Essentially, stating her reign as ten days would be an example of the reverse fencepost error. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

That isn't true because somebody who reigned from 10 July until 19 July she reigned on July 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 and 19 which is 10 different days on which she reigned, fence post error doesn't encompass time, so unless we calculate reigns from time of day we should include both start date and end date as they reigned on both days. E2 was queen on February 6 1952 an she is also queen today so both days should be counted. 148.77.10.25 (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

If the template that every other age is calculated with is used, it gives the results with or without end dates. Emk9 (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

End dates	days	years and days
No	26576	72 years, 278 days
yes using 1/28/2020	24,828	67 years, 356 days

.

References

George William, Count Palatine of Zweibrücken-Birkenfeld

This ruler should be added to this list. He ruled as Count of Sponheim and County Palatine of Zweibrücken-Birkenfeld (HRE) from 16 December 1600 until he died on 25 December 1669 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miloradovan (talk • contribs) 16:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Emk9 (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Question

Does the table rearrange automatically or does 'someone' have to edit the page manually? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

It's manually edited whenever the ranking changes. Emk9 (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

As it will change in 2 1/2 weeks 'just curious.'

There is a case for a 'miscellaneous longest serving royals' section for completeness: Prince Charles - longest serving Prince of Wales; Simeon of Bulgaria - longest serving 'ex-royal'; and Otto Habsburg - longest 'reigning' royal claimant, and probably a few others. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Concerning this article, Simeon only applies. Charles isn't a head of state & Otto never was a head of state. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

For the Elizabeth II row (only), the "Duration" columns update dynamically (if they don't seem to change day-to-day, try a WP:PURGE). The position of the row relative to the others will need manually updating when the time comes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

May someone have to update the table several times. :)

There is a case for a 'Miscellaneous royal records page, which, like this page and Records of heads of state will have a high rate of quiz-setters and similar amongst the readers. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth II will reach No 1 some time in June 2024.

Roughly when would Hassanal Bolkiah be added to the list? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Bolkiah has been Sultan for 52 years, 124 days. Elizabeth has 2 more reigns that will potentially be added to the list, so if both of those are reached Bolkiah would join after surpassing Philip of Hesse-Philippsthal's reign of 57 years, 337 days. If Elizabeth dies before that, he could reach after surpassing Philip I of Nassau-Weilburg's reign of 57 years, 285 days. So over 5 years. Emk9 (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it against WP:NPOV to want (positive) records and achievements to be ticked off? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on the point now suspended until (hopefully) early May 2022. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

To Make Tables Look Better

Should we changes the tables to top 25 Monarchs of sovereign states with verifiable reigns by exact date and top Monarchs of dependent or constituent states with verifiable reigns by exact date because it looks better to have it at 25 and 75? 148.77.10.25 (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should since if the important part of the list is length of reign, then there shouldn't be shorter reigns listed in one section while longer reigns are not listed in a different section. For example, Ludovico I is number 76 on the second list and had a longer reign than number 21, Nicholas I, on the first list. Removing Ludovico while adding 2 shorter reigns just doesn't make sense to me. Emk9 (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why this is a problem, all we have to to is designate the tables as top 25 and top 75, there is a reason it was separated into 2 separate tables, so lets just change the lead to remove '100' and add numbers to each table. 148.77.10.25 (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)