Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of English monarchs/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:11, 24 September 2008 [1].

---

List of English monarchs

I know I haven't finished the Irish monarchs lists yet but I couldn't resist. I have unlinked the dates, written out numbers under ten and vastly expanded the intro in preparation. ;) Best, --Cameron* 17:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: You know what I'm going to say about the name. ;) --Golbez (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hehe...it shouldn't stop the article from being featured, though. The name can be changed within seconds. Would you like me to raise your concern at WP:ROYALTY? I think it's the best place for the discussion. ;) Best, --Cameron* 11:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do. --Golbez (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still on the fence, but the discussion has been started [[2]]. You are most welcome to comment yourself, of course! ;) --Cameron* 21:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Question. I am curious about the use of the term 'English' in the title. The list begins in 774-796 but our article on England says that the Kingdom was created in 927. Were people considered English before there was an England? Am I correct in saying that Elizabeth II (born in London) is British, and not English? --maclean 19:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the first paragraph of Kingdom of England. It states that 927 is the founding date, although a true founding date is impossible to decide. 927 is the traditional date (unification under Aethelstan). Kings as far back as Egbert of Wessex (see list) used the title "Rex Anglorum", meaning King of the English, so yes I'd assume he thought of himself as English, even back then. As to your latter question; Though many people mistakenly called her "Queen of England", she is indeed "Queen of the United Kingdom", which as you said makes her British. Interestingly Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of both the first kings of England and Scotland. The British monarchy is the continuation of the Scottish and English monarchs...sorry I'm blabbering on again. ;) Hope that helped! :) --Cameron* 19:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.thepeerage.com/index.htm
  • http://www.archontology.org/
  • http://www.britannia.com/
  • http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/index.htm
  • http://www.britroyals.com/index.htm
  • http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/index.htm
  • http://www.burkes-peerage.net/welcome.aspx
  • http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ (Note it was originally published in 1917, and definitely has a Catholic slant.)
  • http://www.geocities.com/missourimule_2000/index.htm
  • http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/
  • http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/index.html
  • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/
• You have your publishers of the websites in the link titles. Please list them outside the link titles.
• Other websites don't have a publisher listed at all.
• Per the MOS, don't list link titles in all capitals.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. As a side note, it's not at all remarkable to be a "direct" descendant of both the first kings of England and Scotland. I can claim the same thing. Anyone descended from Henry I of England can claim that, and there are LOTS of folks who can. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - no work on responding to Ealdgyth and regardless of the prose, the list has MOS problems (particularly WP:DASH), references have different kinds of date linking from ref to ref, Refs 5 to 8 are the same. Just not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.