Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Why isn’t the Agha Khan IV on here?

He’s been reigning since 11 July 1957, which is 62 years, 8 months and 1 day.

Surely he should be mentioned, if only in the “no control over state for at least some of his reign” category? GregorEsñQext (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

He isn't sovereign over any territory and never was 148.77.10.25 (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Another entry for the 'miscellaneous royal records' section I suggested above (to include Prince Charles (as Prince of Wales) and Otto Habsburg (as claimant to the Habsburg throne). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Records about royals who were not monarchs seems outside of the scope of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:F8D7:5940:4740:785E (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Byzantine emperors

While Basil II and Constantine VIII were crowned in their infancy, they ruled for shorter periods than is suggested in the table here. In Basil's case, he was senior emperor for a lengthy period of just under 50 years (976 to 1025), though that would put him outside the scope of this table. In Constantine's case, it was a much shorter period of three years (1025 to 1028). Most lists of Roman or Byzantine emperors (on Wikipedia or in the appendices of such books) give the dates of rule as from when they were senior emperor, rather than when they were crowned, which was their way of designating successors. I'd query then whether they should in fact then be in this list. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Should James VI of Scotland be added to the list?

Should James VI of Scotland be added to this list? Despite the personal union with England and Ireland in 1603, Scotland continued to be an independent sovereign state until the Acts of Union (1707), with its own Parliament based at Edinburgh. The dates for reign of James VI are 19th June 1566 to 27th March 1625.

He would be on the list, if we'd normalize the article to Top 25 & Top 75, for the first two sections. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

So let's do that. 69.120.191.32 (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Friedrich Günther of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, Nicholas I of Montenegro, and Hirohito

Since the article distinguishes between sovereign and non-sovereign, I propose adding small mentions in the notes about the periods when the three states in question were not sovereign.

Regarding Hirohito, we all know it's an uncontroversial fact that Japan was not a sovereign, independent entity after the surrender in 1945 until 1952. Let's not be silly. Mnd5trm (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with what you're proposing & please stop opening up virtually the same discussion. GoodDay (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

George William of Schaumburg-Lippe and Bernhard II of Saxe-Meiningen

Schaumburg-Lippe and Saxe-Meiningen were sovereign states for most of the period, and these two, especially the latter, should therefore be in the first list. If the first list should include only those who were monarchs of sovereign states for the entirety of the period, Hirohito and Nicholas I Montenegro should be moved to the other list. Consistency. Mnd5trm (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Since Friedrich Günther of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt is on the first list, Bernhard II of Saxe-Meiningen should be as well, or alternatively both should be on the other list. Both were non-sovereign at the start of their reign but became sovereign from 1813-1814. Mnd5trm (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree & please stop opening up virtually the same discussion, as you just done below. It's disruptive on your part. GoodDay (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Oskar II of Sweden

Why is Oskar II of Sweden not on the list? He reigned for a very long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.148.116 (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Because he doesn't meet the inclusion criteria of this article, as his Swedish & Norwegian reigns aren't long enough. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but it was a very long time. Yug (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC) (criteria of inclusion: a very long time)

Oskar II barely makes the top five longest reigning monarchs in Sweden. Heck, his son reigned longer. The longest reigning Swede is the current king, at nearly 47 years. If he lasts, oh, 10 years more, he'll crack the top 23. 98.228.72.151 (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I would offer the opinion that a reign would need to be for at least 50 years to even be worth discussing based on the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

States with mixed sovereignty status

The division between the top two tables in the main article is between states that were sovereign for all or most of the ruler's reign and states that were not sovereign for most of the ruler's reign.

This section of the talk page is not about the nature of sovereignty - questions about whether or not a given state was sovereign for a given period should be debated elsewhere.

There are three classes of states within the tables: (1) States that were sovereign (where necessary as defined by consensus) for the entirety of the ruler's reign; (2) States that were not sovereign (where necessary as defined by consensus) for the entirety of the ruler's reign; and (3) States that were sovereign (where necessary as defined by consensus) for part of the ruler's reign and not sovereign for the remainder.

For the state that fall into class (3) (for example those referenced as (HRE*) in the second table) it would be helpful if the dates associated with both the period of sovereignty and non-sovereignty were noted (ideally with the length of time the state fell into each category). This would make it clearer whether the relevant reign has or has not been assigned to the correct table. (The latter is unlikely given the care with which these issues appear to have been debated in the past, but needs to be listed for completeness.)

194.129.64.4 (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Number of Reigns

It is a long-standing convention in these tables that where an individual was monarch over multiple realms for the same set of dates, these reigns appear collectively in a single line in the relevant table (see e.g. the first entry for Elizabeth II (of UK etc.)).

In the event of questions being asked as to how many individual reigns a person has in these tables, should we count the number of entries that person has in the tables, or the number of reigns referenced? (By one method Elizabeth II currently has two reigns in these tables, by the other she has five.) (As a special case George III's reigns over Great Britain and Ireland should not be listed separately when answering such questions according to the second convention as they were merged into the United Kingdom before he had reigned long enough to appear in these tables.)

194.129.64.4 (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I would say she has 5 reigns, since the positions are technically separate and theoretically one of the countries could abolish the monarchy which would end only one of the reigns. However, at least for numbering on this page I would leave it the way it is. Emk9 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Palenque

Palenque was a sovereign state? GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I checked the archive and apparently this came up in April. It seems to me that Palenque meets the Montevideo Convention's definition of statehood. Emk9 (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't even a state. It's fiction. There is no Reliable Source to verify that this person ever really existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.101.28 (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

His page definitely has sources, including pictures of his tomb and burial mask. I think it's safe to say he existed. Emk9 (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You mean where it says "Whether the bones in the tomb are really those of Pakal is under debate because analysis of the wear on the skeleton's teeth places the age of the owner at death as 40 years younger than Pakal would have been at his death."?

And the gems..

"Pakal was buried in a colossal sarcophagus...was discovered by Mexican archaeologist Alberto Ruz Lhuillier in 1948. It took four years to clear the rubble from the stairway leading down to Pakal's tomb, but it was finally uncovered in 1952"

and

"Later on, a mask of Pakal was discovered in August 2018".

You can't make this stuff up. 197.87.101.28 (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You are correct that you can't make this stuff up, so it has to be real. Moreover, same page also noted the ruins were first noted by Europeans in the 18th century. It wasn't excavated until later most likely because of lack of budget (and interest, since archaeology didn't really pick up until the following century). 98.228.72.151 (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

And you believe that? lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.126 (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Why Is Queen Elizabeth 2 featuring twice?

I understand that QE2's length of sovereignty is less in Jamaica & some other nations that became independent after her reign began, but we are talking about the same person. So she should not be listed twice. Number 4 & 23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progressiveglobalcommunication (talk • contribs) 11:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Because, her reigns in the other countries are of different lengths. The rankings in this article are based on the length of reigns, not on the individuals. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Legally the crowns of the United Kingdom, Canada, Jamaica etc. are all distinct. Elizabeth II's reign in each of these countries began either on the date on which her father died or on the date on which the country obtained its independence from the British Empire (whichever was the latter). Each country has the authority to become a republic, and so end her reign in that country (and that country alone), and a number of countries over which she was once queen have chosen to go down that route.

Because the crowns of her various realms are distinct, her reigns over each of the realms are also distinct, and therefore any reign over any realm that is of sufficiently long duration should be referenced in these tables individually. (The exception is that distinct reigns by the same person that start and end on the same dates (or start on the same date and are still ongoing) are listed in the same row in these tables - this is long-standing convention.)

194.129.64.4 (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

edward kent

where is Edward Kent he has been ruling since 25 August 1942. he is the count of Kent. he should be added and where is Pharasmanes I the Great of the Kingdom of Iberia. he ruled form 1 ce -58 I added it but someone removed it. add them both William the enderman6713 (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

He's not a monarch, so doesn't belong. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Pharasmanes I of Iberia was not a monarch? By what standard? Dimadick (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm speaking of Edward, Duke of Kent. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Edward is a monarch I added him but again someone removed it brrrr. he is a monarch you guys added so many dukes and counts but not him why.he follows a father to son succession and has a heir William the enderman6713 (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

ad edward William the enderman6713 (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

and he is a count he is like Bernard the XII ok. William the enderman6713 (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

oh wait Bernard is a lord

William the enderman6713 (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It's soon time for you to be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

fine I stop William the enderman6713 (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, you didn't. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

can anyone add XIV dail lama. ruling since 1940 21 February and became ruler at age 5. he ruled Tibet a small part of china Me.amoksbqaz (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sikiru Kayode Adetona

The page history said something about Nigerian traditional rulers not being on the list. Sikiru Kayode Adetona is currently on the list.73.110.217.186 (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

XIV Dalai Lama

hi guys can you please add XIV Dalai Lama he has been ruling since 22 February 1940. that make he's regin 80 years. he has been ruling Tibet a small part of china please. Me.amoksbqaz (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

No GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

why Me.amoksbqaz (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

He doesn't reign over any state. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

he does rule Tibet and some chinese city's tho. the Chinese government supports him as a monarch so yeah and it's just me on another account Egeusyhe2003 (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Raja Sang Tawal

where is Raja Sang Tawal he ruled Kelantan Sultanate from 1267-1339 he means he ruled for 72 years and unknown amount of days please add him and also add Albert,VIII prince of Thurn and Taxis he ruled form 1 June 1884- 31 January 1952 almost 68 years. add both of them please I can't do it my self because I don't have 10 edits. Gpshshdhe (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

German titles of nobility were official abolished in 1919, so Albert's reign wouldn't extend to 1952. Emk9 (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

ok and this is just me in an other account. can you add Raja Sang Tawal at least please Laderman8967 (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

are you even listening just add Raja Sang Tawal Laderman8967 (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

We're not adding it. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

ok fine I do it myself after 10 years Laderman8967 (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

You're wasting our time. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

ok fine I stop bye Laderman8967 (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

wow he is added now Gpshshdhe (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Why are you surprised? You're the one who added him. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Numbers

I think it was said somewhere that it was decided on 25 in the sovereign monarchs section and 80 in the non-sovereign section, but there are currently 81 in the non-sovereign section.73.110.217.186 (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I've corrected it. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The change was due to the addition of Sikiru Kayode Adetona.73.110.217.186 (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Had to make further corrections, as # had jumped to 87, so I set it back to 80. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there was no set numbered for the Monarchs whose exact dates of rule are unknown section, just for ones that could have reigned at least as long as the lowest ranked ones in the ones with verifiable reigns.73.110.217.186 (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Undid those, since they all served circa 57 years, and we can't tell which ones reigned longer.73.110.217.186 (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the 80 limit. If you don't like it? get a consensus here against it. Otherwise, chose a limitation, so this article doesn't get out of hand. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Technically the 80 limit was for the section with verifiable reigns. The non-verifiable section is trickier, since he don't know exactly how long they served. Is there a clean way to address this uncertainty?73.110.217.186 (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

We need to decide on a limitation. 80, 90, 100. Otherwise, folks are just gonna keep adding to the section & until it's too long. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

"I was under the impression that there was no set numbered for the Monarchs whose exact dates of rule are unknown section, just for ones that could have reigned at least as long as the lowest ranked ones in the ones with verifiable reigns" - agree, a fixed number limitation for Monarchs whose exact dates of rule are unknown makes no sense what so ever - the reigns of these monarchs should be comparable to those of the other sections, so the limitation should of course be how many years they have reigned - rulers with a reign of 56 years are not included, whereas rulers with 57 years of reign or more should be included. A number limitation 80, 90, or 100 isn't relevant. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Cut it down to 50 years reign then. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

??? Sorry, I don't follow the point in that? Oleryhlolsson (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Well then 60. As ending a list in a 0 or a 5, is a psychologically pleasurable number to read, in a list. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have looked here before reverting. Either way, I don't think that's enough of a reason to remove rulers who are technically tied, but could have reigned longer than the names that remain in the uncertain reign length section. Emk9 (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's come up with a inclusion criteria for that section, concerning length reign. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the most logical criteria would be anyone who could be on the other two lists if their reign had exact dates, so since six monarchs on the two other lists reigned 57 years and xxx days, the bottom list should have anyone who reigned 57 years. Emk9 (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, this list isn't about psychological pleasurability but about what usefull information the users expect to find, when they visit the page. It's fine by me, that the two first lists seems to fit the numbers 25 and 80 quite well, but this third list is not about a certain number of rulers, but about which rulers that could possibly live up to the bottom figures for longest reigns in the two other lists. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2020

Please change the format of #31 on the Monarchs whose exact dates of rule are unknown section to the following:

31

Odo II

Blois (France)

1047

1115

73.110.217.186 (talk) 03:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Annoying IP, doing test edits.

Is anyone else here, getting fed up with a IP who shows up daily to do test edits? GoodDay (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

what ip address do you mean Gpshshdhe (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Gpshshdhe, it appears to be someone repeatedly switching IPs; check the history. Ionmars10 (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

It's the roaming 103 IP, who's since been blocked. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

there is also 103.108.20.108 he is doing useless edits. Gpshshdhe (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Ethiopians Kings

Is there any other sourcing for the reigns of the various Ethiopian kings from 4000BC that are all from a single book from 1927? None of them have articles (some of them are linked to random places with identical names though) and the source doesnt strike me as reliable, probably either made up or a retelling of local legends without actual evidence. They should be removed until there is an actual source for them. jonas (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, there are more sources however they're all written in the Amharic language and the ancient Ethiopian language of Ge'ez. The book from 1927 was written in English by Sir Charles Fernand Rey (1877-1968), he was the Assistant Secretary for the Ministry of Labour in the United Kingdom and he's considered to be a reliable scholar and prominent East African historian. It should also be noted that there's no standard system for transliterating Amharic or Ge'ez therefore some rulers might actually have articles under a different spelling. This particular transliteration of the names comes from C.F. Rey himself however the list of rulers contained in his book was provided to him by the Imperial Ethiopian government compiled for Rey on the instructions of the Prince Regent on June 19, 1922. On page 263 of Appendix A in his explanatory note Rey writes: "The List of Kings is printed in the exact form of which it was received, and in literal translation. The dates given in the last two columns are those of the terminations of the reigns of the sovereigns, firstly according to the year of the creation of the world (which the Abyssinians place at 5,500 before the birth of Christ), and secondly reckoned before or after the birth of Christ, as the case may be, according to the Abyssinian calendar. For purposes of present-day comparison, it should be remembered that the Abyssinian calendar is seven or eight years behind ours, according to the period of the year, i.e. eight years from 1st January to 10th September (11th September in the Abyssinian leap year which follows ours), and seven years from 11th (or 12th) September to 31st December. This difference is not of course the same all the way back throughout the List of Kings, as the revisions of the calendar took place at various dates throughout the period, but it is near enough for rough comparison. Thus the year 550 of the creation of the world (Alexandrian era), which the Abyssinians regard as the year I, is for us A.D. 8 ; and the last year given in the present List of Kings, viz. 1779, is for us 1787." Therefore I found Rey's book to be credible and I believe that it's appropriate to place these rulers under the heading "Monarchs whose exact dates of rule are unknown," thanks for reading. Czar Petar I (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, the numbering needs to be fixed in the section they were previously in.73.110.217.186 (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Eleanor remove and moving Friedrich Gunther is not sovereign

Eleanor was on douches in her own right the French government did not support her as a monarch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpshshdhe (talk • contribs) 08:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

ok I will not remove her Gpshshdhe (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2021

Please remove cat from the See Also section, as it's irrelevant. 73.110.217.186 (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done thank you for pointing that out! Seems to have been added in this edit. Seagull123 Φ 22:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Joseph zu Salm-Reifferscheidt-Dyck

He was not the the longest-ruling non-sovereign monarch because the county of Salm-Reifferscheidt-Dyck was annexed by Prussia in 1815. --Einsamer Schütze (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Also there appears to be a 10 year gap in his reign, reigning as a Count from 1775–1806 and as a Prince from 1816-1861. Emk9 (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Seemes to me that Frederick III[m](21 September 1415 – 19 August 1493) who was Holy Roman Emperor from 1452 until his death should be moves from Monarchs of dependent or constituent states list to the list of Monarchs of sovereign states he was a Empror after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:199:F2CF:1897:E53C:AEE7:3556 (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

He was only Emperor for 41 years which isn't long enough to make it onto the 1st list. Emk9 (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

mr. Emk9 so you kown any monarch with verifiable date that ruled for 80 years. Gpshshdhe (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

ok @emk9 he was constituent from 1419-1452 father 1452 he dad absolute power so I think he should be moved to sovereign instead Gpshshdhe (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

He was only sovereign for 41 years which isn't long enough to be on the first list. Emk9 (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

if we do maths emk9 then he spen 28 years as n3on sovereign and 41 as sovereign so I think so Gpshshdhe (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@emk9 should we include the 14th dail lama he has been reigning since February 21 1940 and rules Tibet and the chinse government supports him as an monarchs so I think we should and I don't kown how to use the bts date thingys Gpshshdhe (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The 28 years were not sovereign so should not be added to the 41 years in regards to the first list. He should stay on the second list. The Dalai Lama is not sovereign over Tibet, considering he's living in exile in India. Emk9 (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@emk9 I think I might have found someone who ruled longer then Pepi II did his name is Minhti Who ruled the Kingdom of arakan(now Myanmar/Burma) for 95 years 1279-1374 so I he is no.1 now Gpshshdhe (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, feel free to add him then. Here's a source from Guinness as well. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/longest-ever-reigns Emk9 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

oh thanks @emk9 and what is up with this Rey, Charles Fernand (1927). In the Country of the Blue Nile. London: Camelot Press Limited. pp. 6, 262.

thing Gpshshdhe (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a reference from the discussion about Ethiopian Kings

now I understand o. Gpshshdhe (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Countdown for Her Majesty the Queen

Assuming that the Queen lives on, Her Majesty will equalise the longevity of the reign at (of):

• 7 May 2022: Johann II,
• 12 June 2022: Rama IX,
• 25 May 2024: Louis XIV, the currently longest reigning monarch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.212.109.254 (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

ok on 7 May 2022 I place her above Johann and others Gpshshdhe (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor

I suggest to put Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor to the list of Monarchs of sovereign states where he belongs as a Empror and an importan one.

He wasn't the Holy Roman Emperor long enough to qualify for the sovereign state list. Emk9 (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Princes of Condé

I recommend adding two Princes of Condé 1 Henry II de Bourbon reigned from September 1, 1588 – December 26, 1646 2 Louis Joseph de Bourbon 27 January 1740 – 13 May 1818

They ruled Condè a part of France 🇫🇷 Snsnssnuw (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Henri, Prince of Condé Snsnssnuw (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Prince of Condé appears to be a title rather than a ruler. Princes of Condé says "Louis was titled Prince of Condé in a parliamentary document on 15 January 1557 and, without any legal authority beyond their dignity as princes of the Blood Royal" Emk9 (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

OK Now I understand @Emk9 but on Ludwig I on the 2nd list it says his his reign began in January but 29 days so can you fix it and make it December instead. Snsnssnuw (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

O Snsnssnuw (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed Emk9 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Kedah

Why is Muhammad Jiwa Zainal Adilin II in the Dependent list? According to the linked article on Kedah, although it became a protectorate much later (in 1909), was independent (indeed, at the summit of its power) during his reign. 213.78.82.8 (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was because there are other Sultans of Kedah on the list from when it was a protectorate so he was put on the third list by mistake when the list was split years ago. However, while trying to move him to the first list I discovered that we don't actually have a source for the start of his reign being 15 February 1710. The second source on his page just gives 1710-1778. I checked the other languages that linked to his page as well. So, I'm going to look around more, but he might have to go down to the third list instead. Emk9 (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Afonso I of Protugal

Where is he was sovereign monarch from march 14 1117 to December 6, 1185 for nearly 70 years although most sources say his reign began on 1128 however that was when he regentcy Was over so put him Here. Nwoomerkos (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

After doing more research his reign started on 11 May 1112. Nwoomerkos (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Quote from the Portugal Wikipedia page: "The Kingdom of Portugal was later proclaimed following the Battle of Ourique (1139), and independence from León was recognized by the Treaty of Zamora (1143)."

So Afonso I only has undisputed rule as a monarch from 1143 (approximately 42 years, not long enough to get him added to these lists). There is a further disputed claim that he was a monarch from 1139 to 1143 (this only extends his rule to approximately 46 years, again not long enough to get him added to these lists).

Before 1139 all relevant parties considered the County of Portugal to be a vassal state of the Kingdom of León, so during this period Afonso was not a monarch.

194.129.64.4 (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Maeda Tsunanori

Where is he he reigned Kaga domain from April 30, 1645 to June 29, 1724 and Kaga Domain was a Part of japan Maeda Tsunanori should be added he reigned for nearly 80 years. Nwoomerkos (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh wait He abdicate On August 14 1723. Nwoomerkos (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I've carried out a quick check. It looks from his Wikipedia entry that the Kaga Domain was subordinate to the Tokugawa shogunate for the period of his reign. If so that probably means that he doesn't qualify as a monarch. Otherwise the long length of his reign would put him on one or other of the lists.

194.129.64.4 (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh ok he should be on the 2nd list Nwoomerkos (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Someone familiar with Japanese feudal (or whatever they actually were) arrangements needs to review. To a European, reasonably familiar with the European feudal principles, it doesn't look like he was a monarch.

194.129.64.4 (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

Please remove the entry for Malabo II of the Bubi Kingdom - currently Line 48 of the 3rd table (where exact dates are not known). According to the Wikipedia page for the Bubi people Malabo II ruled from 1952-2001, so his reign is not long enough for him to qualify for this table.

The change adding Malabo II also removed Adolf Ludwig Wilhelm of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Karlsburg (HRE), whose reign was from 1749-1806. Since his reign might be of 57 years or longer he should be returned to the bottom of the table. 194.129.64.4 (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Emk9 (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Mahanyod

This ruler should be removed I could not find Any source regarding this Figures existence even the official Hariphunchai page does not mention Him. Nwoomerkos (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Philip I, Count of Schaumburg-Lippe

Philip I, Count of Schaumburg-Lippe can Be added He reigned From March 25 1613 to April 10 1681 Nwoomerkos (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Lippe-Alverdissen is described as an "estate" so I'm not sure if it counts. The various HRE lords have always been hard for me to tell the difference between their ranks, I will continue to look into the exact status of Lippe-Alverdissen. Emk9 (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

A further complication is that Lippe-Alverdissen ceased to exist as a recognised entity when Philip I inherited the County of Schaumburg in 1640. He merged his inheritances into the County of Schaumburg-Lippe, and Lippe-Alverdissen wasn't recreated until after his death.

However, the treatment of George III (of UK) suggests that where a monarch continues to rule over a territory after it is merged into another entity, his/her reign is deemed to continue. If this convention is adopted here then the merger of Lippe-Alverdissen and Schaumburg does not split Philip I's rule over the former into two segments, so the determination in this case will revert to being dependent on the status of Lippe-Alverdissen. 194.129.64.4 (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Henry VI of Henneberg-Aschach

Can this Ruler be added he reigned form 10 February 1292 to January 26 1356. Nwoomerkos (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, I can't tell the exact rank of this region, but it's not a good sign that it doesn't have a page on the German wiki. Emk9 (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean we can make a redirect to the Henneberg page and check the house of Henneberg page you find him there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.107.139.189 (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I meant that if Henneberg-Aschach doesn't even have a page on the German wiki, it seems unlikely that it was of high enough rank to be considered a monarch. Emk9 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean check the Henneberg page and scroll down and then you find him. Nwoomerkos (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Henry VI, I'm talking about Henneberg-Aschach itself. Emk9 (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Go to the henneberg page you find that the territory he ruled was called that look Henry VI in to more detail. Nwoomerkos (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I added him no need. Nwoomerkos (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that House of Henneberg mentions both Henry VI and Henneberg-Aschach. My point is that the HRE had many levels of nobility, and not all of them could be considered monarchs. It can be difficult to tell for many of the smaller territories, but since the German wiki doesn't even have a page for Henneberg-Aschach itself, it seems unlikely that it was of a high princely rank. This isn't necessarily the case, so I think it needs further research. Emk9 (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed that Henry VI is already on the third list, as Heinrich III, which is his name from the German wiki. Emk9 (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh sorry but I mean we should use English names since after all it is the English wikipedia. Nwoomerkos (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Kilhan of Jaipur

He apparently reigned From ruled from 16 December 1216 to 17 October 1276 you can find him on the Jaipur State. Nwoomerkos (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nwoomerkos (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Idris ibni Muhammad al-Qadri, Tunku Besar of Tampin

He is listed in the second table in position 6, as reigning from 3rd December 1929 to 26th December 2005. However, according to the source referenced in the table his reign is listed as being from May 1929 (no day is included). If this source is correct then his reign is longer than is currently acknowledged in our tables. Since the source doesn't list the exact date of the start of his reign it also means that he belongs in the third table, not the second. Hopefully a suitable alternative source can be found to clarify some of these things. 194.129.64.4 (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

New source found (on page for Bernhard VII of Lippe). This source states the reign as beginning on 31st May 1929. However it also states that there was a small interruption so the precise details remain unclear.

194.129.64.4 (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Status of George William?

Currently George William is in 10th place in the second table, which is for monarchs whose state was not internationally sovereign for most of their reign. His reign lasted for nearly 74 years, and ended in late 1860.

Schaumburg-Lippe was part of the HRE before its dissolution, so was not internationally sovereign at the start of George William's reign. However, after the short-lived Confederation of the Rhine it became a state of the German Confederation.

The German Confederation was created in 1815, but arguably didn't come into being until a 2nd treaty was signed on 15 May 1820. According to the Wikipedia page for the German Confederation "[t]he member states … were recognised as fully sovereign."

This suggests that between 1820 (at the latest) and 1860 Schaumburg-Lippe was internationally sovereign, a period covering 40 years. Given that George William's reign was less than 74 years in total, this suggests that he was a monarch of a state that was internationally sovereign for most of his reign, and therefore belongs in the first table, not the second. 194.129.64.4 (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It belongs in the second table, because it wasn't sovereign throughout his entire reign. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Ramesses II?

Why is he not on this list at #7 with a reign of 67 years?

HowardMorland (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

He's not in the first list because his exact length is unknown. He's on the third list on the page though. Emk9 (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Why not add a list that subtracts years that a monarch would be under a regency?

This is largely because why they were the ruler they were it in name only and even then people would say they reach the age of ascension at this time. So why not have a list where these regency years would be removed?

No, because the monarch is still reigning (i.e. is still the monarch), even though a regency is required. In other words, George III was king, from 1760 to 1820; not 1760 to 1811. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Regents vs. Byzantine co-emperors

I'd distinguish between regencies during the infancy of a monarch and the Byzantine practice of crowning emperors as co-Augustus at a young age to ensure the succession. It's not just me: compare List of French monarchs, which gives the start of Louis XIV as 1643 (though there was a regency till 1651) with List of Byzantine emperors or List of Roman emperors, both of which give the start of Basil II's relatively long reign as 976, rather than 960. We should be consistent in the dates we use across Wikipedia, rather than stretching out a reign simply because this is a list of superlatives. — Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Use the beginning & ending dates of the reign. Otherwise, we'd have Britain's George III listed as reigning from 1760 to 1811. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you clarify if you are supporting measuring the Byzantine emperors from the start of their coronation as co-emperor like this list has done for awhile or using the start of their reign without a co-emperor like Iveagh is proposing. Emk9 (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Just use the entire reign of each emperor. Ask ourselves, how would we handle Emperor Peter I of Russia's reign? Would it be 1682–1725, 1696–1724, 1721–25 or 1721–24. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

But that's not comparing like with like. Periods of regency are not the same as junior co-emperors. During a regency, the reigning monarch is the monarch, with others acting in their name. What I'm arguing for is consistency across Wikipedia. The reign of George III is generally treated as being from 1760 to 1820; the reign of Basil II is generally treated as being 976 to 1025. Why should this page in particular use different dates for the span of their reign? —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Emperor Basil II's reign is given as 976 to 1025, at his bio article. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

That's my point! His early coronation of 960 is noted, but the reign is given as beginning in 976, which wouldn't warrant inclusion in this list. — Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Do as you wish. PS - If there is still 'disagreement' among you, then open an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about format glitch but including birth years is IMPORTANT!

Block evasion: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LE. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I unintentionally screwed up the format despite trying to copy the old version's code exactly. The omission of a birth year (never mind day which is unnecessary) is a mistake that should never have just been done by one user without discussion. About the most important "asterisk" there is on the length of a reign is whether the person was actually an adult for the whole period or there was a regent filling in for a child whose length is artificially lengthened by comparison thanks to succeeding as a child. Including birth years should be seen as an important improvement. 96.250.80.27 (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC) A length of a reign is not shortened, due to a regency. Therefore, a birth year, isn't required in this article. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Not required but highly misleading to omit and much preferred to be included!! 96.250.80.27 (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC) It's not misleading to omit & is not preferred to be included. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Whether or not its excellent and laudable inclusion is preferred should be the matter of discussion and not unilateral deletion by those on the negative side.96.250.80.27 (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC) The onus is on you, to get a consensus for what you want added. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

When did Queen Elizabeth II become Queen?

The artile says 1962. It was actully 1952, which moves her considerably up the list. WmDKing (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Assuming you're posting about her tenure as Queen of Jamaica? Her reign began in 1962. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

On which days in May and June 2022 will she move up the list? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

She will surpass Johann II on 8 May 2022, and Bhumibol Adulyadej on 13 June 2022. Peter Ormond 💬 21:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Issues of calendars and month/year lengths have already been discussed - and this close to the events it is 'a reasonable query' rather than speculation.

And when would she become No. 1 on the list? Jackiespeel (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the Jamaica entry should be removed. It screws up everybody's entry below her. 1) It gives Elizabeth II two entries on a list of individuals. 2) Who was the monarch of Jamaica before independence? It was still her and nothing about her monarchy changed from 1962 onwards. She had already been Queen for 10 years and she carried on being Queen. But the real reason is the two entries on the list and making George III 18th instead of 17th. Silas Maxfield (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

In order to do that, you'd have to call for the criteria of this article to be changed from independent country first to monarch first. The last RFC here, resulted in independent country first. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The list is about sovereign monarchs. You say "nothing about her monarchy changed from 1962 onwards. She had already been Queen for 10 years and she carried on being Queen". It is wrong because there didn't exist a separate Jamaican monarchy before 1962. Jamaica was not sovereign before 1962, and she reigned as Queen of UK. When Jamaica became independent in 1962, Elizabeth II became its own sovereign monarch and she continues to reign to this day. Her reign over Jamaica before 1962, is already reflected in her entry as Queen of UK in the list. Also, The Queen of UK and The Queen of Jamaica are legally two different persons. We number them differenty because: 1.Sovereignity, 2. Different reigns, 3. They are legally different persons... etc. etc. Peter Ormond 💬 17:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC) PS: The Queen of Jamaica didn't reign over Jamaica before 1962, because its was under the Queen of Britain. :) Peter Ormond 💬 17:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, there was no Jamaican monarchy (thus no Queen of Jamaica), before 1962. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I question whether Elizabeth II (or anyone else) should be twice in this list. It creates all sorts of complications with several rulers where the details of the country or countries they reigned over may have changed during their lengthy reigns. PatGallacher (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

There does appear to me to be a consensus above to support this approach. If anyone disagrees then please explain your reasons. It's not enough just to say "no consensus". PatGallacher (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend an RFC on this matter. The practice on this article, has been to go by the reign length, not by the monarch. If we're considering changing that criteria? Then a wider input should be invited. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Kilhan

Alright, what's the story on this monarch. At some point he was added into the list without prior discussion on whether he should be added. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Someone mentioned them on the talkpage and had a source for both the start and end of his reign, and as far as I could tell Dhundhar was a soverign state at the time of his reign, so I added him. Looking back at the request now, the user was a sockpuppet, but I wouldn't remove Kilhan on that point alone. Emk9 (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Kilhan, should be deleted from the section. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Should he go on the non-sovereign list? Or are you questioning the source for his inclusion entirely? Emk9 (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Non-sovereign list, at least. As for the sources? others can figure it out. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Here's 2 from India Benudar Bajradhar Narendra Mahapatra who ruled for 57 years Here is source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranpur_State Bishan Chandra Jenamuni who ruled for 75 years Here is source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rairakhol_State 103.137.24.150 (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Emperor Nintoku

He was not a legendary emperor Yet he still isn't on this list 103.137.24.79 (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This is why he's on not on the list. "His existence is generally accepted as fact.[4] However, no firm dates can be assigned to this Emperor's life or reign, but he is conventionally considered to have reigned from 313 to 399,[5] although this date is doubted by most scholars.[4]" Emk9 (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Non-exhaustive list ?

Hello, I wanted to clear a point... The French Wikipedia holds a ranking that includes other long-reigning monarchs, and part of them are over Queen Elizabeth II in the ranking... So is the French Wikipedia holding a wrong ranking or is this english Wikipedia ranking non-exhaustive ? Cyygma (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Those people are on the second list, for monarchs of dependent or constituent states. Emk9 (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent additions

We seem to be having monarchs slowing being added to the top list, whose reigns weren't fully covering sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Question

Since the first list is now 56 years Should the second one be as well? 103.137.24.176 (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The first section, is the top 25 monarchs. The second section, is the top 85 monarchs. The third section, is the top 100 monarchs. Let's agree to leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Had to sign it because it didnt let me reply But while looking at the edit history I found out the oringinal purpose was to make it a top 100 However if you do the maths 25 + 85 is 110 Which is higher then 100 So what to do now since its above 100 Also sorry if my grammer sucks,i am only 14 Qwertyuiop1230 (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The second section would need to be reduce to a top 75. But, best not to do that, without consent. GoodDay (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Probably doesn't matter, it's such a trivial thing anyways. Now finding good sources to write about is a whole different ballpark, that's the point of Wikipedia, after all. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I wish the last section would be left alone. Somebody's changed it to top 84, which is odd looking. GoodDay (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Requesting to semi-protect this page?

Considering how much of this article is subject to meaningless/unhelpful edits, oftentimes by IP addresses/sockpuppets, perhaps this article needs a semi-protection restriction. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Afonso I of Portugal

I've gone into the archives to confirm that the inclusion of Afonso I of Portugal was previously discussed in March 2021. My response at the time was as follows:

Quote from the Portugal Wikipedia page: "The Kingdom of Portugal was later proclaimed following the Battle of Ourique (1139), and independence from León was recognized by the Treaty of Zamora (1143)."

So Afonso I only has undisputed rule as a monarch from 1143 (approximately 42 years, not long enough to get him added to these lists). There is a further disputed claim that he was a monarch from 1139 to 1143 (this only extends his rule to approximately 46 years, again not long enough to get him added to these lists).

Before 1139 all relevant parties considered the County of Portugal to be a vassal state of the Kingdom of León, so during this period Afonso was not a monarch.

My opinion on the topic hasn't changed since. He was not the monarch of a country until at least 1139, and not undisputedly recognised as a monarch until 1143. So his reign is at most approximately 46 years. Hence he didn't reign for long enough to appear on these lists, and should therefore be removed.

194.129.64.4 (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

IMHO, the third section (i.e the monarchs with unconfirmed reigns), should be deleted from this article. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Just because a monarch doesn’t have the exact dates doesn’t mean that the list should be removed. I’d say if these sources were cited (as the whole article should be), then those entries should stay, at the least. Yourllocalordandsavior (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• I removed him.67.173.23.66 (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Changes made to the lists, particularly for the top list?

Few points:

• Elizabeth occupies two of those spots, why not add a number 26? or 30 since the list is too limiting in my opinion. I'm fine with 25/26 at the moment if one or two of the below notes is applied (especially the Monaco one if it's sourced).

Three rulers of small states from the top 25 list should ideally be removed either due to their country being too small or actually dependent:

• According to this Wikipedia article, Franco-Monégasque Treaties, Monaco was a protectorate of Sardinia up until 1861, therefore I believe we should remove the two Monaco rulers from the top list, especially since top 25 is very constraining. I discovered the article through the page for Monaco. Probably needs more digging, but if so, should be removed.
• There's a ruler of a German principality who somehow manages to get onto the sovereign monarchs list due to his reign miraculously being right between the HRE's dissolution (per below list's criteria) and ending at the same time it gets absorbed into the North German Confederation, see German Wikipedia page for the principality which has more information. Perhaps change the criteria for the second list to include German Confederation/insignificant states?

Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

According to This article by the Monaco Embassy in Washington DC, Monaco was under Spanish protection for a century (1524?-1641) in between periods of French recognition and protection of Monaco as a sovereign state, so that would nullify Honore I. There's varying accounts however to whether or not Monaco was a French puppet, however it's sovereignty was definitely ended by a Revolutionary French invasion in 1789, which would make Honore II's reign as sovereign only 56 years (if the whole French protectorate thing doesn't count). Maybe one should find out if multiple countries recognized Monaco independence at this time too and not just France and Spain in the Treaty, with verifiable sources? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

25 is long enough, but there are a 'few' entries that don't belong as their country wasn't independent during part of or all of their reign. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the German prince, since it wasn't a fully sovereign nation.2601:241:300:B610:D1F5:799F:9B2:9711 (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I might've changed my mind on the German prince, since he was sovereign, even if it's of an insignificant nation. Should probably keep him. He's also been cited by a few websites (preferably looking off this page) Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I would say that these German states post-1648 were sovereign in all but name but I don't mind seeing this guy removed due to the loophole of the below list's criteria (see above). Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I might've changed my mind on the German prince, since he was sovereign, even if it's of an insignificant nation. Should probably keep him. He's also been cited by a few websites (preferably looking off this page) Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You should probably seek consensus for that first. I reverted the change for now. 67.173.23.66 (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Honestly folks, Dhundhar, Fatimid Caliphate & Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt weren't sovereign states, during the attached reigns. They should be removed from the top list. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought Fatamids were sovereign? Regardless, you might as well rename the top list to "notable sovereign states". You can also remove Honore I (per above). Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

So it seems that the first list was now limited to 20. Should it stay at that or be kept at 25?2601:241:300:B610:4582:110A:8D80:A6AE (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Prefer more than less. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be 20. The 21st person would be Wilhelmina, with a reign of 57 years, 286 days. Likewise, the 86th person for the second list is Philipp I of Nassau-Weilburg with a reign of 57 years, 285 days. To me, it makes the most sense to keep the length of the reigns between all the lists to within the same length.

Was there any consensus for this?67.173.23.66 (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Moved Honore I down from the top list, Honore II should still be subject to discussion, but I think keeping him here makes sense, since Monaco's status as France's protectorate meant that France would use her military to protect Monaco's sovereignty, weird kind of agreement but it is what it is. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Eleanor of Aquataine

Reading the archived list, would it be possible to include Eleanor of Aquitaine (who's 35th on the list) on the top? Do personal unions not count, with Philip/Mary and William/Mary in mind? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Can we just go by countries' Wikipedia article/most common names?

I cannot but say how many times am I weirded out by seeing "Aragon" instead of "Kingdom of Aragon", perhaps partly because we're not using actual Wikipedia article country names. I just think it would be easier in that way to identify, say, non-existent countries instead of just calling it "Aragon" or "Sicily", or using the (common) name of the current country to name a ruler from the 12th century. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I think Basil II should be on this list, unless...

I looked into the archives for this article and still don't get why doesn't the beginning of Basil II's reign start from 960? Unless there's a general consensus among Byzantine historians about this that someone has to tell me then this will remain my opinion. Being consistent across Wikipedia doesn't matter if it at the end of the day interferes/conflicts with historiography. As a caveat, I'll add a note about the conflicting dates to Basil II's rule. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the edit reasons for the removal were "Neither List of Byzantine emperors nor List of Roman emperors use these coronation dates for the length of reign of Basil II or Constantine VIII; instead they use the dates of becoming sole emperor" and "Regencies are different to early crowning, as evidenced by standard dates used elsewhere on WP for these; see Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs# Regents vs. Byzantine co-emperors" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.23.66 (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

So are junior emperors not emperors at all, according to historians? Or are junior emperors just symbolic? Still, I would like to see this cited from a historian somewhere. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The prior talk discussion didn't really touch on the issue, so I don't know what the rationale was.67.173.23.66 (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

As I understand it. The title junior emperor was just that, a title. Merely to cement the next-in-line's place in the succession. Much like what King Henry II of England did in 1170, when having his eldest surviving son (also named Henry) crowned as king, in his (older Henry's) lifetime. In Young Henry's case, he predeceased his father & so never got to really be king of England. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, GoodDay has a point, and this is indeed noted by historians. Ancient writers did differentiate between co-reigns and solo reigns, even tho there was no "official" difference. Just to give an early example (actually the earliest), Caracalla was proclaimed co-ruler in 198, at age 10. However, sources tell us he ruled 6 years, not 19. At some point the Byzantines finally decided to clarify this and began using the title autokrator to distinguish between "senior" emperors (basileos autokrator) and "junior" emperors (just basileos). So, yeah, I think it makes sense not to include Basil II. I would argue that it makes less sense that Caracalla's reign is reckoned from 198, but wathever. Tintero21 (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding a note that the top list excludes the Indian sovereign states

I was thinking of adding this note to the description above the first list. Everyone else okay? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

What Indian "sovereign states"? Peter Ormond 💬 08:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I think he means Kilhan,Parashuramrao Shrinivas,Chinamans Rao I Appa Sahib and Sawant Singh

Jackal Himorse (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Who would be from 26-50 for the top list?

I’m not going to add these to the list, just curious only, if anyone knows. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

26 Abdullah I Al-Sabah
55 years, 240 days
27 Sosaany Vong
55 years, 217 days
28 Victor Amaudeus II
55 years, 83 days
29 Moulay Ismail ibn Sharif
54 years, 342 days
30 Frederick III (As The HRE)
53 years, 188 days
I do the rest later Jackal Himorse (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Also sorry for not giving spaces Jackal Himorse (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

And is this from using the Wayback Machine? A lot of these are wrong, the first guy's reign seems to be from 1776-1814 (even clicking on the outside source gives an approx starting date of reign), the second guy was a ruler of French-occupied Laos. Savoy was apparently in the HRE. Both Abdullah and Moulay don't have exact dates on their Wikipedia pages. Looking at the archived page, a lot of these guys seem to have unverified/falsified dates.

Thanks for trying though.Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

So I just did my own list, so you don't have to worry. Also, strangely enough, Elizabeth would've gotten 26th as the recently former Queen of Barbados, with Hassanal Bolkiah, the current Sultan of Brunei, at 27. Including multiple Elizabeths probably needs a discussion if we ever add more than 25 (or by removing another ruler from there) Also in a year nd a half, if the Sultan of Brunei is still alive then, he will be number 25 on the top list, beating both Prince Ranier's and Elizabeth's Barbados reigns (if the list doesn't change until then). Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually i got through the page's old history

(Into Febuary 2017) and that's where i found these rulers from Jackal Himorse (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh okay. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Henry III of England

Just wanted to note, I was against the changes of the start date of the earlier monarchs at their bios. The consensus at those bios, was that The king is dead, long live the king didn't apply. In other words, automatic succession wasn't established in those old days. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Friedrich Günther

This might be a anecdote, but I don't think the German Confederation was ever considered a true state. Regardless, the Confederation of the Rhine would make his reign about 53 years (52 if they lost their sovereignty by joining the NGC in 1866 (according to German Wiki page). Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Another thing to consider: during the first 8 years of Johann II, Prince of Liechtenstein's reign, Liechtenstein was a member of the German Confederation. Does that affect his ranking?67.173.23.66 (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Another thing, Sobhuza II's entire 82 year reign from 1899 to 1982 is listed in the dependent or constituent states section, when his country was independent from 1968 onward, so I don't think it would be divided in that manner.67.173.23.66 (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Pyusawhti

Jackal Himorse, I went by this list in regards to him, of which the chronicle I chose, when going into it's article, states that this chronicle is considered by historians to be the most accurate, especially in regards to the early monarchs (Early Bagan, and perhaps earlier). Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Include monarchs with no names?

On this list of Vietnamese rulers, under Funan, there's this question marked ruler with no name, whose dates of rule fits with the ruler being on the third list. Assuming that there will be more of these unknown rulers elsewhere, would it be okay to include unknown rulers on this article, if there dates of reign are given? One thing I must point out is that in the Monarchy of Cambodia article, where Funan is also listed, it lists three monarchs occupying the same time period, compared to the Vietnamese one. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Need some help

Can somebody fill in the lists from this article, List of Manipuri kings? There seems to be quite a few with very long reigns on this list, of which I assume there to be many others on other Indian states lists, as well as including this guy, Lạng Chượng, from the Ngưu Hống section of List of monarchs of Vietnam, the unknown Funan monarch is also on that article as well if anybody wants to insert him into this list. I would gladly appreciate all this help. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm more frustrated, that we can't seem to keep the second & third sections as 1–85 & 1–85. Why are they being constantly messed up? GoodDay (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Because both trying to be accurate with the third list alongside maintaining it to 85 is very hard. The numbers shouldn't really matter. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The 1-85 limitation was only on the second section, not the third.67.173.23.66 (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Constantly changing third section (monarch's who reign length are unknown)

If some of you are going to persist in messing up the rankings, by trying to include monarchs who might've reigned for at least 58 years (why that number is the bar, I don't know)? then remove the ranking column itself. That way, we won't have any more 1–87 or 1–91, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The number is the bar as, to quote the section, " The list is limited to those that might reasonably be expected to lie within the range of those in the tables above"67.173.23.66 (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

My removal of the rank numbering in the 'third' section, should solve the problem. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

On the State of Kedah

GoodDay objected to the inclusion of Muhammad Jiwa Zainal Adilin II of Kedah on the list of sovereigns with verified dates and reverted my edit. While I mostly reverted him because I did other work that a simple revert would wipe as well, I have withdrawn Muhammad and have returned him to the unverified dates at the bottom. This has however brought up a question. If you look at the article history, you see his reason as "Not Sovereign State", but the article on the Kedah Sultanate declares it sovereign before 1821. So which is it?--78.128.191.17 (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

You also attempted alterations to Elizabeth II's entry as Jamaica's monarch. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed I have. If you wish, then I will revert that part too, but would this version not represent the status better? The subject has come up before and her placement was maintained in the list despite it causing a duplicate. This way we can maintain the separate position, but acknowledge that Elizabeth holds both positions. I can see the phrasing "Personal Union with #4" may seem clunky and if opposed, I will revert the innumeration if someone else doesn't do it before me.
However before that, I would like to have clarity regarding Kedah's sovereingty or lack thereof as noted above. Previous issues have been raised over the inclusion of Monaco due to its protectorate status, but I see nothing about Kedah that would indicate it was not sovereign before the 1820s. I am not going to argue over Muhammad II himself. I returned him after all. But clarity there is something I wish to have.--2001:718:1E03:5128:C1D5:2D98:97D6:1206 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll let others debate your inclusion of Kedah. But a consensus was already reached, about how to present Elizabeth II's position as Jamaican monarch. Also, respect WP:BRD in future. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Very well. I misinterpreted the above as not yet establishing concrete consensus. I shall leave Jamaica's enumeration intact henceforth.--2001:718:1E03:5128:C1D5:2D98:97D6:1206 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Note though, your addition of Kedah has extended the list to 86. We want the list limited to the top 85. This is partially to stop editors from making personal preference additions, in the top two sections. Otherwise, the article would soon grow too long. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Second section. Is it going to remain at 'Top 85', or not?

I think we're in agreement, to have the first section as a Top 25 & to leave # rankings out of the third section, entirely. But what about the second section? Do we keep it at Top 85, or do we extend it to Top 90, Top 95, or Top 100. As I understood it, we put in limits for the top two sections (Top 25 & Top 85) of this article, to avoid bloating & tendencies by passers-by editors to make preferential additions. The second section used to be a Top 75. At some point, we've got to firmly make a decision. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Given that the lower end of the first chart ends at 55 years, while the second ends at 59 years, maybe we just just combine the two into one list at 100, like it was before. As it stands, the distinction being based on their status for "for most or all of their reign" is a bit inconsistent. For example, Sobhuza II's entire 82 year reign is listed under the "dependent or constituent states" section, even though his country was a sovereign nation for the last 14 years of his reign.67.173.23.66 (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Then I'll remove the rankings, if that's the way we're going to continue forward with additions. Or shall we keep it at Top 85. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should have separate lists for sovereign and non-sovereign monarchs if it's causing that much trouble.67.173.23.66 (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

We should keep'em separate. Semi-protection for this article, would prevent drive-by or newbies, making bold edits that upset the current status. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

On the topic of Sobhuza II, should his entire reign be included in the second category, or just the years when his country was a British protectorate?67.173.23.66 (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

He and his reign belong entirely in the second section. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Something

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_r%C3%A8gnes_africains_les_plus_longs This article i found lists some rulers who reigned longer then Sobhuza II Should we include them? 103.137.24.176 (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Preferably find citations first though, I doubt those are confirmed however, probably belongs on third list, with no exact dates. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Third list should be completely deleted, as it's constantly influx. PLEASE folks, leave it as 1–85, or make it 1–90, 1–95, 1–100. But that's it. We work with 0's or 5's. GoodDay (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay i myself checked and found this https://l-express.ca/reine-elizabeth-ii-regne-depuis-70-ans-jubile-platine/ So should we include him or not Jackal Himorse (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Should these count?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kedah_Sultanate In the Hindu rulers section It lists tons of monarchs who reigned for long terms of 50-80 years Should these be included or not? 103.137.24.176 (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay Jackal Himorse (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Which section? GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think he means the Hindu rulers section on the Kedah page Jackal Himorse (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hindu era Jackal Himorse (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Conrad I

I saw some sources say that Burgundy was a part of France So should he be removed from the first list or what? 103.137.24.201 (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, following the death of Charles the Fat in 888, it became separate and wasn't incorporated into the Holy Roman Empire until 1032. 67.173.23.66 (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hassanal Bolkiah

Where does he fit here considering he's been Sultan of Brunei for 55 years already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magellan Fan (talk • contribs) 03:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

List of current reigning monarchs by length of reign "54 years, 163 days" Emk9 (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I myself went through the page's old history and he would be 28 Only beaten out by Moulay Ismail ibn Sharif (Who apparently ruled for 54 years 342 days) and Abdullah I Al-Sabah (55 Years And 240 Days) Jackal Himorse (talk) 06:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

NV he would be 29 because of Elizabeth II's Barbados reign (Which lasted for exactly 55 years) Jackal Himorse (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh and for everyone wondering here is the rest of how it would be

30 Frederick III Of Germany 53 years,188 Days

31 Fulk III Of Anjou 52 years,336 days

32 Frederick II 52 Years,210 Days

33 William II the Conqueror 52 Years,68 Days

34 Tahmasp I 51 Years,357 Days

35 Haakon VII 51 Years,307 Days

36 Said bin Sultan 51 Years,197 Days

37 Yeongjo Of Joseon 51 Years,188 Days

38 Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor 51 Years,167 Days

39 Franz Joseph II 51 Years,111 Days

40 Peter IV Of Aragon 50 Years,346 Days

41 Sigismund Of Hungary 50 Years,253 Days

42 Pōmare IV 50 Years,249 Days

43 Mwambutsa IV Of Burundi 50 Years & 204 Days

44 Edward III 50 Years & 147 Days

45 Joanna Of Castile 50 Years & 137 Days

46 Ivan The Terrible 50 Years & 116 Days

47 Sao Kin Maung 50 Years & 100 Days

48 Lone Horn 50 Years & 97 Days

49 Bhim Singh 50 Years & 84 Days

50 Margrethe II 50 Years & 62 Days

This took me a very long time to do Jackal Himorse (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Cleopatra II

Her article apparently gives her a reign of about 60 years (175 BC-115 BC) so does she fit on the list

Tho she did have a few Co-Rulers in he life i still think she counts Jackal Himorse (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Question

Just my option but should we go back to the 50 year criteria? Checking the history of the page the reason why it turned to 57 was due to someone who wanted it to be a top 100 But the two tables split up and the first one has 25 meanwhile the second has 85 and doing maths that is actually a top 110 IMO the 50 year criteria was way better and more interesting to read with more Info on rulers

Plus with this criteria was similar to this page's sister page List of shortest reigning which had a 365/366 year criteria and IMO would be way more cosistent

Oh and the 57 year criteria is ruined now as the original point of it was to make a top 100 but now it is a top 110 which really does not match at all

Does anyone else agree?! Jackal Himorse (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Apparently it was changed because it made the past indiscriminately long. 67.173.23.66 (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but the same can also be said for the shortest reigning monarchs

That page is also very long but you do not see people complaining Jackal Himorse (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It used to be 25/75. But editors kept adding to the second section. Therefore it became 25/85. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I checked through the history of this page and yes that is true but

Should we bring back the 50 years criteria since the top 100 criteria is pretty much no longer in use at this point

Now it is basically a top 110 that makes no sense to me

And limiting it to this lacks consistency

The first section starts with 55 (Tho only with one guy) the second with 60 (Tho only with two guys and is more of a 61)

And the third section starts with 57, I think IMHO that this list should revert back to it's 50 year criteria (Just like how the Shortest reigning monarchs page does)

I have already found 25 people to make the first like a top 50

The second list to be around 100

And the third list to be pretty long,although one can say it is way too long but the same can also be said for the shortest reigning monarchs Jackal Himorse (talk) 06:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

So is the decision final?

Should we revert back to the 50 year criteria but with this new layout! Jackal Himorse (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't bring back the 50-year criteria. If anything restore the 25/75 format. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay after reading a IP's message suggesting the third section to be longer

I can confirm we should make this list a top 55

IMHO all three lists should be 55 years just like the first list is so we can have more of a "Consistency"

And better consistency means people will like this List even more and the list will be more informative and 55 years TBH sounds like a good plan

I can gather enough people to make the second list a top 115 at least so i think we should do a 55 year limit Jackal Himorse (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh and 55 years Criteria should be used instead for better consistency

Consistency is what this list really needs and i am now gonna make it

Oh and do not revert it this time it took a lot of hardwork and consistency is great Jackal Himorse (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Anyways the decision is final

55 years should be the perfect limit for this article for way better consistency and Wikipedia articles are to be kept as consistent as possible

"55,60 And 57" sounds way too inconsistent for me so 55 years it is

Jackal Himorse (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Also i just realized they are about 295 entries on the list

So if we add 5 more then it will be a top 300 which is also cool Jackal Himorse (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Such a major change requires consensus. I've commented out the additions for now. 2601:241:300:B610:0:0:0:565B (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I know but still

We need consistency for this list Jackal Himorse (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Malietoa Tanumafili II

He is ranked based on his tenure as one of the paramount chiefs, namely Malietoa. Is this considered a monarchial title?2601:241:300:B610:0:0:0:565B (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

"It is the titular head of one of the two great royal families of Samoa"

It probably is Jackal Himorse (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)