Wikipedia talk:WikiProject English Royalty/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Infoboxes

Right. Quite a few of the articles within this project's scope already have Template:Infobox British Royalty — I would suggest that that infobox is used for all of this project as well. What do we all think? (Well, Cameron, what do you think? :P) DBD 23:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. I might just take the liberty of adding it to the to do list. ;) --Cameron* 11:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

English/British

A while back I suggested a need for separate categories to replace Category:English and British princes etc. but I never did anything about it, as I wasn't sure whether Category:English princes would be correct. Can someone suggest an alternative category for these articles? Category:English royalty, perhaps? Opera hat (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I too have worried about English and British being the same category. Scottish monarchs/princes etc were just as much predecessors to British monarchs/princes as the English. We certainly should establish an English royalty category sometime. English princes could be a subcategory? --Cameron* 19:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes: Category:Princes in the British Isles as the main cat, with Category:Princes of England, Category:Princes of Scotland, and Category:Princes of Great Britain, Category:Princes of the United Kingdom, with Princesses likewise and each category a child of the respective Category:Royalty of X. How does that sound? DBD 19:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Alertnatively, Category:British princes (with Princes of GB & UK), with Category:English princes and Category:Scottish princes as children, with Princesses likewise and each category a child of the respective Category:Xish royalty. So, that question again: "of" or "ish"? DBD 19:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I prefer the former. Consensus on other pages seems to indicate that the "of X" version is the future! Great idea though. This way the categories have their own subcat. but remain part of one big category! I love it! ;) --Cameron* 19:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am in the process of performing the huge move. DBD 20:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sitrep: I have been told to cease. DBD 16:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that the list on this WikiProject, ends with Queen Anne; as she's the last Monarch of England. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue is, though: were members of the English and Scottish royal families ever actually called "Prince/ss So-and-So"? These sort of titles weren't really regulated until the accession of the House of Hanover. Queens Mary I and Elizabeth I were called "the Lady Mary", "the Lady Elizabeth" before their accessions, not Princess Mary or Princess Elizabeth - though I suppose that may have been because they were legally illegitimate. Opera hat (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed the Category:Princes of Scotland. The only people in this category should be people who were Prince of Scotland - i.e. the heir-apparent, who was also Duke of Rothesay. Category:Princes of England shouldn't exist unless someone can provide evidence that the title "Prince of England" was ever used. I'm in favour of Category:Princes of Great Britain and Category:Princes of the United Kingdom, but Category:British princes needs to exist as well for people like John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough and George Cowper, 6th Earl Cowper who were British nationals and foreign princes (of the HRE in those two cases). Opera hat (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

D'oh, it would have been good if I'd actually read your contributions of 17th inst. before posting. But I'd oppose "of X" unless there was actually a specific title of that name, as I've already said. Opera hat (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Eddeva

There is no article on Eddeva / Queen Edith who appears to have been the mistress of King Harold II. Article is outside my area of knowledge so I'll leave it to the experts! Mjroots (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

We do, see Ealdgyth Swan-neck. It needs some work doing though, if you're interested! ;) Best, --Cameron* 11:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside my area of knowledge. I've also seen references that Eddeva was the wife of Edward the Confessor. Same person or someone else? Should Eddeva be a redirect or a disambig page? Mjroots (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Separate person. See Edith of Wessex. I'll leave the disambig. decision up to you, though personally I've only heard Eddiva used in relation to Edward the Confessor's wife. Feel free to joing the project! ;) Regards, --Cameron* 16:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Requested move of Edred

I've requested a move of Edred of England to Eadred of England. If you agree or disagree or want to comment in any way, please do so at Talk:Edred of England. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. In other news, please consider doing what you can to address the Good Article review concerns over Edward the Martyr. More opinions at Template talk:English Monarchs would also be good. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Titles of Prince and Princess in Kingdom of England

François Velde's Heraldica site says that the title of Prince was only used for male-line descendants of the Sovereign from the reign of Henry VII, and the title of Princess from the Restoration. This means that membership of Category:Princes of England should be dramatically reduced (and I still think Category:English princes would be a better name anyway). Thoughts anyone? Opera hat (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree, atm we are badly back porting modern styles into a time where they did not exist or at best were fluid. Certainly we are not citing support for any such usages. Even on your latter point James Duke of York has daughter(s) eg Lady Henrietta well after the restoration - though prince for sons!

Unfortunately the site doesn't clarify Scotland much - the heir was in certain documents known as Prince of Scotland but I can't see anything clarifying other children AllsoulsDay (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC of interest

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox British Royalty#RfC: Scope and appropriateness of this template which may be of interest to the vast membership of this project. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Scottish Royalty

I just though everybody should know that WikiProject Scottish Royalty has been proposed here on the WikiProject Council/Proposals area. This project would be a child of WikiProject British Royalty and would take a similar role as WikiProject English Royalty. The Quill (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

English Royalty Colour change proposal

Currently the colour for English Royalty is Pink (#FFBBBB ). However, England has no connection with Pink, I believe instead it should be this shade of Red: (#F88379). Thoughts on this change would be appreciated. The Quill (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's (as prescribed at WP:BRoy) Light Red (#FFBBBB). And I like it that way. (But then I was the one who assigned it...) DBD 18:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I was in a bot of a rush at the time I have know corrected my original statment. The Quill (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Red is probably more 'Englandy', but is your red 'Englandy enough'? The English coat of arms and flag use a darker shade. ;) --Cameron* 18:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if my proposed colour is 'Englandy enough' as you put it but it is the best I could find so far that still makes text reasonably easy to look at. If you can find a darker shade that still works then I would happily support it. The Quill (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Could one of these shades be more appropriate?

Red - Rose madder (#E32636).

Red - Torch red (#FD0E35).

Red - Vermillion (#E34234).

Personnaly I think that the Vermillion is quite a good shade. The Quill (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Light Red already used is intended as a pastel shade so black text can be read over it. If you want a dark shade, that would have white text over, it would have to be the correct pantone from the Union Flag's specification (#CC0000) DBD 20:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That you see is the issue do we want white text. If you don't mind then its good. The Quill (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

English Royalty Image change proposal

Currently the Image for English Royalty is the Crown of Saint Edward. I believe instead it should be the Royal coat of arms of England. Thoughts on this change would be appreciated. Mr Taz (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Done Mr Taz (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Catherine of Aragon

Simply said, the article about Catherine of Aragon is an embarrassment for Wikipedia! It was informative and worth reading a year ago - until various users started transforming it into a formless, ugly, romantic and novel-like "article". I've been trying to clean it up for months, but it's impossible. All the uninformative, irrelevant and romantic-unencyclopaedic trash is back again in few days :(

I am talking about useless discussions about a portrait, mentioning books in the middle of the article, romantic descriptions of Catherine and Henry's love, early 16th century quotes which praise her, and similar trash. Some examples include sentences like: Henry often came into Catherine's rooms in disguise with some of his gentlemen and danced with Catherine and her ladies, and Catherine always pretended to be surprised when Henry revealed his identity, even after he had been doing this for many years.

Please, help me improve this article and clean it up for good! Surtsicna (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

British Royalty styles

Also raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty#British Royalty styles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stelio (talk • contribs) 10:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that there was an inconsistency in the use of Template:Infobox British Royalty styles on George I of Great Britain and George II of Great Britain, with the alternate style listed as "Sire" for the former and "Sir" for the latter. Assuming that it should be "Sire", I corrected George II, and then (being thorough) checked where else the template is used.

Now I see that there are several pages listed with "Sire" and several with "Sir". Before I charge ahead and change any more pages, I wanted to ask you experts for your opinion on which is correct (or indeed if it actually is correct for the titles to change from royal to royal).

Thanks, Stelio (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point of any of these styles infoboxes anyway. Could someone please outline the benefit of including them in wikipedia articles? Opera hat (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Æthelred of Wessex

Should be a start class now for you. SGGH ^ping! 18:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

England at GAC!

Alerting all WikiProject English Royalty/Archive 1 members that England is undergoing a review for WP:GA status. Things you can help with are listed here. Please help if you can... England expects that every man will do his duty.... :) --Jza84 |  Talk  16:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Catherine Parr

At Catherine Parr, this edit changed a title to "Quenn Catherine, Lady Seymour (1547–1548)". Apart from the typo, I suspect the change is not correct and hope that someone will check it. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Mary I of England

Did Mary I of England really have a brain tumour as a child? Anyone have a ref for this or is it bogus? I am not well-versed in the monarchy...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google Book Search does not give any information about Mary I's alleged brain tumour. Surtsicna (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested peer review of Charles I

Some substantial progress has been made with Charles I. Whilst not yet at featured article quality, I think that it should probably be able to reach it in the not too distant future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Request comments at Template: English, Scottish and British monarchs

There's a log-jam there. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth I's succession box

Until I changed it a moment ago, the succession box at the bottom of the page for Elizabeth I of England listed Edward VI as her successor in the position of "heir to the English throne". This is utterly wrong, and I don't know how the error persisted for as long as it did (years). The position of "heir to the English and Irish thrones" is listed separately. There her successor is Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, which is right as far as I can tell. I replaced Edward the Anachronistic with Henry. There may be some arcane distinction between the two "thrones" that I don't understand which means that Henry isn't the right answer either, but I reasoned that it's better to be technically wrong than mind-bogglingly wrong. I leave it to the people here—who I hope know more about it than I do—to sort out the technicalities. A. Parrot (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Book:British kings - need help to make sure it's up to par

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Series/Wikipedia Books

Could someone tell me if this book makes sense (structure-wise, and scope-wise?), see Book:Canada or Book:Presidents of the United States for comparison. Since some of you may not know about Wikipedia books, I've included a list of signpost articles about them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, this book should contain all British kings, and perhaps some introductionary articles on the British monarchy, as well as some companion articles (perhaps such as a list of kings/british monarchs, and the articles on the various houses of these kings). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I was always sure that james the first was elizabeths succeseor

Infobox for Lord Guilford Dudley

User:Surtsicna insists that this article (a GA) can no longer have Template: Infobox Royalty, because Guilford was "not royal" (see edit summaries). I personally couldn't care less about which box is used, but I would think this conflicts with this project's policy. Buchraeumer (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

How exactly does it conflict with the project's policy? I did not say that it can "no longer" have the infobox; please don't words into my mouth. It should've never had it in the first place. Obviously, Infobox royalty is supposed to be used in articles about royal people - do you disagree? Surtsicna (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not putting any words in your mouth when I describe your edit and revert as insisting. Your words in the edit summaries were: "Infobox person works great here. He was the husband of a woman who is sometimes considered a queen. That does not make him royal. Husbands do not automatically gain their wife's rank." and "Seriously, that's why we should use an irrelevant infobox? This infobox is meant to be used in articles about royal people. Being husband of a woman who may have been queen does not make him royal."

If an article is rated as mid-importance in an English Royalty Project it can be assumed that Infobox Royalty is apt. Why don't you remove the consort template and similar stuff also? Why don't you change the box for Geoffrey of Anjou, another disputed English consort, as well? Guilford acted as royal consort and was referred to as "King Guilford" by the Habsburg court in Brussels during that time, for your information. Buchraeumer (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick is also part of the WikiProject - that does not mean that the article should use Infobox royalty. The consort template has nothing to do with the infobox so I have no idea why you mentioned it. Even his wife's royal status is disputed, let alone his own. And thanks for the information; it's very relevant. Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I am o.k. with infobox person, but your argument lacks any prinicple: Fitzjames is apparently within the scope of this project because he was the (illegitimate) son of a king. In contrast, Guilford is in the project because he was the consort of a queen, however much of an usurper she may have been. There are scores of usurpers with royalty or monarch infoboxes: Phocas, Leontios, Richard III, etc. The infobox made clear that Guilford's "status" was/is disputed; and he cannot be more disputed than Jane, just equally. So their "status" is not the point here, but that he was a consort or usurper-consort, if you like. On the other hand, Catherine Parr and many other people were/are neither of royal blood, if perhaps that is the criterion for the royalty infobox. Even dukes may use it, although they are not royal, being no kings. Strange criteria. Buchraeumer (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Should Henry VIII and Edward VI be in the list of kings of Ireland?

Please see Talk:List of Irish monarchs. A user believes that Henry VIII and Edward VI should not be included in the list of kings of Ireland because the Pope did not recognise them as such. Two users (one of them being me) disagree, stating that they were undisputably kings of Ireland. Surtsicna (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Lords and Ladies of Ireland

Please do the same for the discussion on if or if not the Lords of Ireland were Irish monarchs and if the Ladies of Ireland should be included in the List of Irish consorts. See Talk:List of Irish monarchs and Talk:List of Irish queens and consorts. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving Tudor dynasty to House of Tudor

There is a discussion in progress at Talk:Tudor dynasty about moving Tudor dynasty to House of Tudor for those who wish to comment. OCNative (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

I'm curious as to how the project views an article like Descent of Elizabeth II from William I, which has not a single source in the entire article and has been tagged for that problem for over four years. (BTW, the project is not even listed on the article's Talk page.)--Bbb23 (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of 'queen consort' in Wikipedia articles an anachronism?

My impression is that modern historians writing of the Tudor (and earlier) periods rarely use the terms 'consort' and 'queen consort'.

The OED gives the earliest usage of 'consort' as 1634, and the earliest usage of 'queen consort' as 1640-4:

a. A partner in wedded or parental relations; a husband or wife, a spouse. Used in collocation with some titles, as queen-consort, the wife of a king; so king-consort, prince-consort (the latter the title of Prince Albert, husband of Queen Victoria).

1634 W. Wood New Englands Prospect Ded. Note sig. A2v, Your selfe, and your vertuous Consort.

1640–4 King Charles I in J. Rushworth Hist. Coll.: Third Pt. (1692) I. 521 His dearest Consort the Queen, and his dear daughter the Princess Mary.

Is there a reason why these terms are used in Wikipedia articles concerning women who lived in the Jacobean and Tudor periods, and earlier (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]? Is it perhaps an anachronism? NinaGreen (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that non-existence of a term for a thing means non-existence of the thing. It would be anachronistic if the articles claimed that they were styled as "HM The Queen Consort", but simply describing them as queens consort is not. One might argue that spelling the title as "queen" is anachronistic because it was spelled "quene" during their lifetimes, but that would not make sense either. Surtsicna (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Referring to the future Mary I and Elizabeth I from 1536-1558

A recent discussion of this topic can be found here [5]. The other editor is perfectly correct in stating that Mary and Elizabeth were bastardized by the Act of Succession. But that is not the issue. The issue is how they should be referred to in Wikipedia articles during the years after they were bastardized and before they respectively became Queens. Historians are perfectly well aware that Elizabeth and Mary were bastardized, but even after mentioning that fact modern historians nonetheless routinely refer to them as 'Princess Mary' and 'Princess Elizabeth' during that period, as do very authoritative sources such as the Calendar of State Papers [[6]], the National Archives (see [7] and [8]); British History Online [9], and the Cecil Papers [10]. Even the Royal Collection of portraits owned by the present English monarch titles the well-known portrait of the young Elizabeth during this period as 'Elizabeth I when a princess' (see [11]), and Wikipedia Commons titles the portrait in the same way, i.e. 'Elizabeth I when a Princess' (see [12]). The reason for this unanimity in referring to Mary and Elizabeth as 'Princess Mary' and 'Princess Elizabeth' from 1536 until they respectively became Queens is a practical one. Historians know that everyone will immediately realize who they are talking about when they refer to 'Princess Elizabeth' or 'Princess Mary', and that if they were to use 'Lady Elizabeth' or 'Lady Mary', readers would be confused. Until historians and authoritative sources such as the Catalogue of State Papers, the National Archives, the Cecil Papers etc. change their practice, it seems reasonable that Wikipedia should adopt their usage, and refer to them as 'Princess Mary' and 'Princess Elizabeth' during the period in question, despite their bastardization, perhaps with an explanatory footnote mentioning the bastardization. NinaGreen (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What seems most reasonable is to refer to them simply as Elizabeth and Mary, as they are referred to in articles about them (a featured and a good article respectively). That would be factually correct and recognisable. That is what I've suggested several times to you, only to be ignored every time. Surtsicna (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that doesn't work because of context. One can't write that Sir Walter Buckler was chamberlain to 'Elizabeth', and expect any reader to understand who is meant. The reader would have to click on the link (if there is one) to find out who 'Elizabeth' is, which is actively discouraged by WP:EASTEREGG.NinaGreen (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Referrring them simply as Elizabeth/Mary can work if one explains who they are and from then on uses their plain names, which is the standard Wikipedia procedure. "He wished to marry the future Queen Elizabeth I, but Elizabeth turned him down"; "he was a servant of Mary I prior to her accession, and Mary was his most significant patron"; "she then met Elizabeth, who would ascend the English throne in 1558", etc. That is called piping and has nothing to do with Easter egg links. The articles about Mary and Elizabeth and their family manage to mention them properly, accurately and clearly. I see no problems there. In fact, it seems to me that a problem is being made out of nothing. The anachronistic title should not be used, much like it is not used in the articles about the women themselves.

I propse that this discussion continues at one talk page rather than two. Surtsicna (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Surtsicna, contrary to Wikipedia's policy of no original research WP:NOR, you're putting forward a position which involves your own original research, and which is inaccurate. A quick search of the internet reveals that both Elizabeth and Mary were referred to during this period by others at court as 'the Lady Mary's Grace' and 'the Lady Elizabeth's Grace'. See [13], [14], [15], and [16]. Moreover, and this is a key point, 'Grace', according to the OED definition, is b. A courtesy-title now only given to a duke, a duchess, or an archbishop. Formerly used in addressing a king or queen. It thus seems clear that the consistent use of 'the Lady Mary's grace' and 'the Lady Elizabeth's grace' by contemporaries was an acknowledgement of their royal birth despite their bastardization by the Act of Succession, and your initial argument was thus inaccurate.

In short, Elizabeth and Mary were never referred to by their contemporaries as merely 'Mary' and 'Elizabeth', which would have been disrespectful in the extreme, and trying to work into every Wikipedia article the designation by which they actually were referred to, 'the Lady Mary's Grace' and 'the Lady Elizabeth's Grace' is well-nigh impossible. Moreover establishing whether you are right or wrong in your claims as to how they were or should be referred to involves you and other editors in original research, contrary to Wikipedia policy. As I suggested earlier, the best solution under the circumstances would be for you to use whichever designation you wish to in the articles on which you're working, and refrain from 'correcting' the articles of others in this respect, particularly since your 'correction' appears to be historically inaccurate, and can't be established as either accurate or inaccurate without considerable original research, contrary to Wikipedia's no original research policy. NinaGreen (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Pardon me, but the first paragraph is utter nonsense. I have cited authors who specifically say that Mary and Elizabeth were stripped of the title of princess and who explain the significance of their loss of the title. What part of my argument falls under the definition of original research? You, on the other hand, managed to conclude from the wording "Lady Elizabeth's Grace" and from the meaning of the word "grace" that they were styled as princesses. Now, what part of that conclusion does not constitute synthesis?

Now that I've reached the second paragraph of your latest response, my hopes for a more sensible argument are shattered. It makes even less sense than the first one. The fact that their contemporaries did not mention them as merely Mary and Elizabeth is so much irrelevant that I have no idea why you are even mentioning that. They are mentioned as merely Elizabeth and Mary in articles about them, which did not prevent those articles to appear on the Main Page as featured articles. Why not? Because it is not Wikipedia's task to respect or honour people. Even Elizabeth II, a living person, is referred to in the article merely as Elizabeth and never as Her Majesty, which would be "respectful". Laura Bush is not referred to as Mrs. Bush, which would be "respectful". I am appalled that you think it would be ideal to refer to Mary and Elizabeth as "the Lady Mary's Grace" and "the Lady Elizabeth's Grace". This entire discussion has become astonishingly ridiculous and I strongly suggest that you read WP:Manual of Style.

You also have to realise that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and that its editors do not own articles they are working on. Surtsicna (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Surtsicna, the problem is that the conclusion you've reached appears to be an erroneous one, and it's based on your own original research. The various Acts of Succession are available in reliable sources, but you don't provide links to them or quote from them. You merely purport to tell us what they say, and what conclusions we're to draw from what you've told us about them. That's original research. I should also clarify, since you've mentioned it twice now, that this is not about 'owning' articles. The issue is a claim you've made which appears to be erroneous, and which appears to be based on your own original research. Other editors are not obliged to accept your original research, as original research is contrary to Wikipedia's policy.NinaGreen (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

When she was declared illegitimate in 1536, Elizabeth was no longer titled "The Princess Elizabeth" but "The Lady Elizabeth". She was formally bastardised by the savagely worded Act of Succession of July 1536 and deprived of the title of Princess. You are accusing me of original research after I cited this the same day this discussion started? You, a user who hasn't cited anything that says otherwise but concluded it was wrong from the wording "the Lady Elizabeth's Grace", are accusing me of original research? That is just laughable - almost as laughable as your claim that referring to her simply as Elizabeth is "disrespectful in the extreme". What I am not obliged to do is responding to such preposterous claims, especially not when you continuously ignore my replies to them and instead post more of them. Surtsicna (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Surtsicna, are you really unaware of the Third Succession Act of July 1543 which restored Mary and Elizabeth to the line of succession, or are you merely pretending to be unaware of it? See the Wikipedia article [17]:

This new act, returned both of Henry's daughters Mary and Elizabeth to the line of succession, behind Edward, any potential children of his, and any potential children of Henry by his current wife Catherine Parr.

This entire discussion began here [18] at the John Wolley (MP) article where you purported to 'correct' a statement in the article which related to the years 1551-2, almost a decade after both Mary and Elizabeth had been restored to the line of succession, erroneously claiming that 'she was not a princess at the time'. The fact that both Elizabeth and Mary had been restored to the succession long before 1551-2 is indisputable, and your alleged 'correction' was an error. I don't intend to comment further. I do feel it's a positive step that the discussion has been put on the record here. NinaGreen (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

NinaGreen, are you really unaware that their being in the line of succession does not mean they were princesses? Are you really unaware that they were still bastards? Are you not aware that being in the line of succession does not make one a prince or princess? Are you not aware that your concluding that they should be called Princess Mary/Elizabeth from an act which does not say any such thing is a gross violation of WP:NOR and a classic example of synthesis? I am appalled that you even had the nerve to accuse me of such a thing. It is also curious how you avoid commenting on that. Finally, are you aware that none of your arguments make any sense whatsoever? It is more than clear from this discussion that the best way to refer to Elizabeth and Mary is "Elizabeth" and "Mary" respectively. As simple as that. Surtsicna (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Other editors might be interested in this from the online Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Elizabeth I:

At Edward's baptism the four-year-old Elizabeth carried the christening robe (although she herself had to be carried), while Mary was godmother. Both daughters were now legally illegitimate, although this stigma was practically a fiction, as became clear in 1544 when they were restored by the Succession Act to their places as heirs to the throne. As pawns on the royal marriage chessboard they were too valuable not to be countenanced by their father.

NinaGreen (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Surtsicna (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:English and British princesses

Can someone seperate Category:English and British princesses into Category:British princesses and Category:English princesses? It seems Anglocentric to categorize British princesses with English princesses and the British and English princes have their own categories.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"English princesses" (as discussed above) is an anachronism. I would suggest instead Category:Daughters of English monarchs, which I suppose is the intended scope. Moonraker (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

AfD pending on Wulfrida, Queen of Wessex?

The Wulfrida article states she was Queen of Wessex, as wife of Æthelred of Wessex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wulfrida states "No verifiable evidence that Wulfrida existed." I assume users from this project may wish to comment one way or another on this deletion. OCNative (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have started a new page at Wulfthryth of Wessex. We are still lacking Saint Wulfthryth, who was abducted by Edgar the Peaceful and became the mother of Saint Edith. Moonraker (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Children of Mary Boleyn and William Stafford

Article on Mary Boleyn lists two children with her second husband, William Stafford. Article on William Stafford (courtier) states: "... if there were children of the marriage, nothing further is known of them." The article on Elizabeth I has a pedigree chart that only lists two children of Mary Boleyn. Can someone correct this discrepancy? 76.14.73.201 (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Geoffrey (archbishop of York) nomination for Today's Featured Article

I've nominated the article Geoffrey (archbishop of York) to be considered for Today's Featured Article, nomination discussion is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Geoffrey (archbishop of York). — Cirt (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

GA nomination of Exhumation of Richard III of England

I've nominated Exhumation of Richard III of England for consideration as a Good Article in advance of his reburial next March, which will attract a huge amount of interest. The article is in good shape and is quite comprehensive, so I'm sure it will be a good GA candidate. I'd be grateful for any help with the GA review. Prioryman (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Featured article nomination of Exhumation of Richard III

I've nominated Exhumation of Richard III of England for consideration as a featured article candidate, in advance of Richard's reburial on 26 March 2015. If anyone would like to contribute to the review, please feel free to do so at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exhumation of Richard III of England/archive1. Prioryman (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Houses?

Is there a particular reason that no articles about the houses are tagged? Is this project focused only on the pages about single people? I would certainly think that the pages about the various houses would count as related to the scope of "English Royalty" Peeteygirl (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Æthelwulf of Wessex listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Æthelwulf of Wessex to be moved to Æthelwulf. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Tudor dynasty listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tudor dynasty to be moved to House of Tudor. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

John V, Duke of Brittany listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for John V, Duke of Brittany to be moved to John IV, Duke of Brittany. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

House of Tudor listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for House of Tudor to be moved to House of Tudor. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

reign start dates of norman and angevin kings

I'm changing the start dates of the reigns of the Norman and Angevin kings to match with their coronations. My source for this is Bartlett (2000) England under the Norman and Angevin Kings which has a section on the Interregnal Period. "The Norman and Angevin kings did not claim to succeed to the royal title immediately upon the death of their predecessor, as was the case in later English history. It was coronation that made a king and kings dated their regnal years from the day of that ceremony" p.123 To use the earlier date therefore misses the particular significance of the coronation ceremony in this period even if in cases where the monarch is de facto king.

Ealdgyth would like to see other secondary sources from modern historians. I'm not aware of a secondary source that uses the death of the predecessor as the beginning of a reign and the date is not linked to a particular source at present. Bartlett(2000) is a eminent modern historian published in a university press so I don't understand what would count as a more valid source. There may be many other equally valid sources but I don't know of a source that dates the reign from the death of the predecessor. Jhood1 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming you will leave notification notices of this debate on the relevant talk pages...? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Ealdgyth would like to see the sources for each individual reign, whatever those may be. If you take Bartlett's comment (which is a general comment) and then apply it to each article on a king - you're doing WP:SYNTH - taking a general statement and applying it to individual cases. It would be best to have sources for each reign - whether they use the coronation date or the date of the death of the previous king. I'm not saying Bartlett isn't correct - but it doesn't solve the problem for each king's article. And while that may apply to the regnal year and may reflect what the contemporaries thought - we still need to see what modern historians date the reign from. Bartlett's really addressing the concept during the reign of the king. We now need to know if modern historians concur with using the coronation date or if they (even if this isn't what the medieval people may have thought) go by the death date of the predecessor. Ideally this would be things like Handbook of British Chronology or Handbook of Dates or even the website of the British Monarchy. We should also consult the various biographies of the kings and see when those biographers start the date reigns. Popular histories of the various dynasties would also be good sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll further point out that I really don't have a dog in this fight - the one article I really worry about is William the Conqueror, which is absolutely a very special case where he reign definitely began with his coronation. I don't care either way, but when something is challenged, the correct procedure is to muster the sources that address the specific issue. Bartlett helps but using him for each article is opening up WP:SYNTH issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance and sorry if I've caused trouble by not following the proper procedures this is the first change I've tried to make. Bartlett goes on to say the specific kings succeed on their specific coronation dates but I agree a reference work would be better. Cheney's Handbook of Dates seems to give coronation dates for the start of reigns from what I can see on Google Books [19] for William II (26 September), Henry I (5 August) and Stephen (22 December). But I can't access for Richard, John or Henry III. Does anyone have access to these sources?--Jhood1 (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the issue should not be what one singular source says, but what the preponderance of reliable sources state. That is, one new source does not, by itself, outweigh the entirety of historical thinking on the subject. --Jayron32 17:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd echo Jaryon's comments on the policy here. Looking at the link to Cheney, I can't see any statement that he is giving a list of dates for reigns, but I may be missing it - it looks like it is just a list of dates of "rulers of England". Incidentally I took a look at the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and I note that they, like the British Monarchy's own site, don't actually use a detailed date span for reigns, just going with the year concerned. The same practice also seems to be common in the academic biographies. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to chime in. There is a difference between regnal years (which are a bit awkward) and the start of a reign. And that's why the vast majority of sources date reigns from the death of predecessors. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I have the Bartlett book. He is emphasising the importance of the coronation, especially when there was some doubt over the succession e.g. the accessions of Henry I, Stephen and John. However, and this is a big 'however', general usage places the date of accession of a monarch to the date of the previous incumbent's death. Thus Charles II was crowned in 1660, but he dated his reign from his father's execution more than a decade previously. I think that this general convention should override the specific situation regarding the Norman/Angevin monarchy. We really cannot have a differing set of date criteria for different periods of English/British history. It would be too confusing. Urselius (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I certainly agree that it should follow the preponderance of sources. My understanding was that the consensus in the sources from this period dated from the coronation. If this is wrong should there not be a source that dates from the death of the predecessor linked to the claim?--Jhood1 (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

There's an Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on "Monarchs of England (924x7–1707)". Here's a quotation from the second paragraph: The list is ordered chronologically by dates of accession. These dates are marked as approximate until 1066, unless they are definitely known, on the grounds that successions were occasionally contested and it is not clear whether someone was regarded as king from the day of his election, the death of his predecessor, or his inauguration. Reflecting contemporary practice, from the accession of Harold II until the death of Henry III a monarch's reign is dated from the day of his coronation; from Edward I to Henry VIII (with the exceptions of Henry IV, Edward IV, Edward V, and Henry VII) from the day following the end of his predecessor's reign. From the accession of Edward VI a monarch's reign is treated as having begun on the day the predecessor's reign ended, with the exception of Charles II (dated from the day he was recognized as king by the English parliament) and William III and Mary II (dated from their proclamation as king and queen by the convention summoned to decide on the succession). The important part of this passage is: "Reflecting contemporary practice, from the accession of Harold II until the death of Henry III a monarch's reign is dated from the day of his coronation".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting - they cite the format of the Handbook of British Chronology btw. The ODBN doesn't appear to actually use those dates in its own biographical articles on the kings, though. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the reference to the Handbook of British Chronology on ODNB is about the choice of Athelstan as the first king in the list rather than about reign dates.--Jhood1 (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Either way, they don't actually use those dates in their own biographical articles. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

So most sources that I can find use the coronation date for these kings. My belief is that academic biographies don't go into sufficient detail on the precise date for that start of the reign but if anyone has an academic biography that discusses these issues then that would be interesting. I believe the best sources for this are references works. As noted above ODNB uses coronation dates from Harold II to Henry III in its list of kings. They only use years in the articles but they don't use the death of the predecessor anywhere that I can see. Cheney's Handbook of Dates (p.32) uses coronation dates to date the holders of the title king of the English for William I through to Stephen and then uses the regnal years from Henry II onwards. The regnal years from Henry II to Henry III begin with the coronation. The Handbook of British Chronology (p.30 on) uses coronation dates as the dates of accession for the kings Harold II through to Henry III. It does this on the basis that no English king adopted the royal style before their coronation. These three sources are reliable sources and they don't indicate that the position they take is controversial and the ODNB explicitly says this is contemporary practice. This is the basis for my belief that there is a consensus among reliable sources for dating the reigns of William the Conqueror to Henry III from their coronations. However, I would of course be very interested if there was another source that dated the reign from the death of the predecessor that someone knew about.

However, there have also been other criticisms. Urselius notes that being inconsistent across all English monarchs would be confusing. The main opportunity for confusion that I can see is if someone came from an article like Victoria to Richard I and inferred that the start of his reign was the date of the death of Henry II. However, I feel that the close proximity of the coronation date below the reign dates mitigates this. Also, the system is currently inconsistent with regard to William I, Stephen and Henry II. I believe that inconsistency is better that applying an anachronistic standard.

Dweller notes that regnal years are awkward. I can see two ways in which this is true. For some like King John the regnal years are of different length each year as he was crowned on the feast of Ascension, a movable feast. However, since we only need the start date of his first regnal year I don't see that being a problem here. The second way that regnal years can be awkward is for later monarchs. Edward I's regnal years start on 20th November when oaths were sworn to him at his father's funeral despite his absence. However, his father died on the 16th and his king's peace was also declared on the 17th, as well as on the 20th. Cheney and the Handbook of British Chronology therefore give the 20th but ODNB gives the 17th. It's therefore not clear which is best and why I wouldn't argue for a general rule using regnal years. But for William I to Henry III regnal years match up with coronation and are consistent across the sources.

There is also a problem with loss of information. It becomes unclear for Richard I for example who held power in England between July and September 1189 at first glance. Although Richard held de facto control he deliberately styled himself Lord of the English. There is a consistency problem here with using the earlier date. Since Matilda cannot be considered to have been a monarch, she is recorded as lady of english as she styled herself. She also held de facto power for a time, issuing writs etc. Her situation was therefore comparable to an uncrowned king.

Sorry for the long essay, I'm new to wikipedia and my understanding of the guidelines is that the reliable sources should be our guide here but please correct me if I'm wrong. If you know of other sources or feel I've missed out or misrepresented your criticisms please do respond. --Jhood1 (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

If the rule changed from an early practice of dating a reign from the coronation to the later practice of dating it from the end of the previous reign, then it would be wrong and irrational to pretend otherwise just for the sake of having consistency in the list. Wikipedia needs to be accurate. Richard75 (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

We need to follow the practice of the preponderence of secondary sources, not primary sources. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• This book uses only years, but seems to use years of predecessor's death rather than years of coronations. --Jayron32 11:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  This book on Page 30 states "Until, apparently, the reign of Edward I, no English king assumed the royal style before his coronation." It does go on to note that each assumed administration of the country as its "Lord" and did the job as Head of State, but did not assume the title or styles of King until the date of their coronation. So there is that. --Jayron32 12:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The death of the predecessor and the coronation both occurred in the same year for all the kings under discussion. So the first book doesn't have enough detail to indicate which should be used. --Jhood1 (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

How do we establish consensus?--Jhood1 (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Based on the above, I don't think there is a consensus for change, Jhood. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

A solution might be to just put years in the reign fields of infoboxes. There isn't really a need for that detailed of information, I would think. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Would fit typical academic practice. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Ælfthryth, wife of Edgar listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Ælfthryth, wife of Edgar to be moved to Aelfthryth (wife of Edgar). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Æthelbald of Wessex listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Æthelbald of Wessex to be moved to Æthelbald, King of Wessex. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Æthelberht of Wessex listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Æthelberht of Wessex to be moved to Æthelberht, King of Wessex. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Egbert of Wessex listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Egbert of Wessex to be moved to Ecgberht, King of Wessex. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 09:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Edward, the Black Prince listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Edward, the Black Prince to be moved to Edward the Black Prince. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Stephen, King of England listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Stephen, King of England to be moved to Stephen of England. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Elizabeth I of England listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Elizabeth I of England to be moved to Elizabeth I. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

A-Class review for Edward the Elder needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Edward the Elder; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Emma Portman, Viscountess Portman article

Hi, all. We need people weighing in at Talk:Emma Portman, Viscountess Portman#Accuracy. It's about when Portman dies and therefore the accuracy of the viscountess title. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Reign Dates

The Handbook of British Chronology (E.B. Fryde et al. 1986) is an authoritative source for reign dates of English kings. It notes that from William the Conqueror to Edward I the reign was dated from the date of coronation. (p. 30)From Edward II to Edward V it was generally dated from the day following the death of the predecessor (with exceptions for depositions). (p. 31) It was only from Edward VI onward that dating the reign to the day of the death of the predecessor became standard practice. The ODNB cites the HBC and follows this rule.ODNB

At present the reign dates in the biographical article infoboxes of English monarchs and the List of Kings are not well-sourced. Generally they seem to apply the later rule of dating the reign from the day of death of the predecessor anachronistically.

I would propose changing all the biographical article infoboxes and list of kings to match the Handbook of British Chronology from William I to Edward VI. Note this is not the same as using regnal years. Where that is inappropriate as is the case with Henry VII or Charles II, the Handbook uses its judgement. Wikipedia should follow the reliable sources not decide to incorrectly apply a later standard. Where reliable sources for an individual reign uses different dates that should of course be taken into account.

As far as I can see the changes would effect these infoboxes:

• Edward I: reign start changed from 16 Nov to 20 Nov (HBC p.38)
• Edward II: reign start changed 7 Jul to 8 Jul (HBC p.39); reign end date: at present says 25 Jan, article implies 21 Jan, HBC p.39 says 20 Jan. Can't access reliable sources but Seymour Phillips ODNB article implies 20 Jan, when he abdicated. Perhaps 21 Jan when this was announced to parliament is appropriate.
• Richard II: reign start changed from 21 Jun to 22 Jun; reign end changed 30 Sep to 29 Sep (HBC p.40). Don't have access to reliable sources on Richard II but Chris Given-Wilson's biography of Henry IV (Yale Monarchs Series 2016) implies that it was specifically Richard II supposed abdication of the crown of the 29 Sep rather than the acclamation of this decision by parliament on the 30 Sep that deposed the king. The point being that Henry wanted a king deposed by his own abdication rather than by parliament. (p.142)
• Henry V: reign start changed 20 Mar to 21 Mar (HBC p.41)
• Henry VI: reign start changed 31 Aug to 1 Sep (HBC p. 41)
• Edward V: reign end changed 26 Jun to 25 Jun (HBC p.42) This seems to be in the article but infobox seems to copy Richard III accession day of 26 Jun.
• Henry VIII: 21 Apr to 22 Apr (HBC p.42)

Jhood1 (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

My understanding was that the new monarch becomes king or queen as soon as the previous monarch's death is announced. Is that not the case? Deb (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That is the case now. It may have been otherwise many centuries ago. Surtsicna (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I imagine the only thing that would stop it happening is that it would have taken longer to communicate the death of the previous king. Hence the proclamation had to be read all around the kingdom.Deb (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe it is related to travel time. For example Henry V died on the 31 Aug in France yet his son's reign is dated to the following day, even though no-one in England would have been aware at the time. Jhood1 (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The principle today is one of immediate succession. Before Edward I there was no immediate successon. Between Edward I and Edward V, there was immediate succession but monarchs dated their reign from the day after the death. Since Edward VI, where succession has been undisputed, the date of death has marked the beginning of the reign.Jhood1 (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Was there a prior discussion about these dates anywhere on Wikipedia? I have a passing memory of this exact conversation from years ago (perhaps 5-6? Maybe longer?) but I can't seem to dig it up anywhere. Does anyone remember this or can find it so we can see what, if any, has been decided about this? --Jayron32 18:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I raised this issue in regard to the reigns of Norman and Angevin kings beginning at their coronation some 18 months ago. It was unresolved. Following notifications on the relevant talk pages I made the changes some weeks ago. The discussion is a few sections up. I started a new section because I have now realised that later medieval kings dated their reigns from the day after their predecessors death. Jhood1 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It makes sense. We shouldn’t retrospectively apply a rule which wasn’t followed at the time. We’d need to add a paragraph to the article explaining how the convention changed over time. Richard75 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

But is it a "rule"? It isn't something stated in law. If, for example, we knew (and I don't) that a certain monarch was proclaimed king as soon as his predecessor died, would it make any difference what the HBC says? In practice, the reign dates of kings are showing big gaps - for example, when Henry V died in France and it took a while for the news to reach England, hence Henry VI's reign officially starts a couple of months later. But the fact is that Henry VI was the reigning king in the interim, even though he wasn't ruling. We don't show these notional gaps in List of English monarchs. Deb (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't quite understand your point here Deb. The proclamations as far as I can tell have no effect on reign dates. Jhood1 (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• "The king is dead, long live the king!"—there is no gap in the reign dates, as Deb says, whatever practical limitations had to be overcome at differing points in time. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 11:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Incidentally, Jhood1, why, if you came here to reach a consensus on your proposed edits (which is good, thanks!) have you proceeded to go ahead and make the changes anyway, with the edit summary Changed reign date, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject English Royalty#Reign Dates, when—as far as I can see—no such consensus has actually been reached? (Yet, if at all) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 11:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't seen your comment. I concluded enough time had passed to make the changes. If you look at the sources I've listed above you can see that there are in fact gaps in reign dates. This is contrary to many peoples expectations but it is nonetheless the case. Please provide sources that back up the claim that there are no gaps in reign dates. Jhood1 (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jhood1: Not much point in having a discussion if the changes are going to be made unilaterally...as you were told some eighteen months ago. @Deb:, thoughts? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 11:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) A Handbook of Dates For Students of British History (Cheney, revised by Jones), the most accurate reference i know of, gives the regnal years dated as Jhood1 suggests above. Deb, i don't think there are gaps per se, nor is there a "rule", just a convention in the way of describing reality. I'm not fully convinced we should follow either convention (that of the Middle Ages or that of today) blindly; we ought to do what is most easily understood for our readers ~ whatever consensus suggests that is. And, Jhood1, there is not a consensus here, yet, less than fortyeight hours after you raised the question; i would like to suggest you change back the changes you have made, and wait for an actual consensus to develop. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes. Personally, LindsayH I don't see that there are different conventions. There is a the convention used in the Middle Ages which is the same as that followed by historians today. There is a different convention used by more modern monarchs and followed by historians of the later period.Jhood1 (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Using William the Conqueror as an example or basis for a rule is a bad idea, as he took the throne by conquest, so the start of his reign is going to be somewhat different. The same sort of problem occurs with William II, Henry I, and Stephen, as each is not strictly speaking the "correct" heir and thus we can't extrapolate from their practices. It's only with Henry II that we have anything approaching something like a regular succession (and even that was still weird because Stephen's surviving son could have contested Henry's reign). The first "eldest son takes the throne after his father's death" succession we have after the Conquest is Richard I. And then we promptly break it with John, as there is the problem of Arthur of Brittany. Henry III is a difficult case because many of the magnates were supporting Louis of France. So the next "follow the rule" king is Edward I. I don't think we can FIND a rule that was consistently followed before Edward I (and then ... after Edward II, we break it again with Edward III...). In short - medieval English kings don't appear to HAVE a rule on succession (because after Edward III we get into the Wars of the Roses... I dare anyone to find a rule THERE!). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Ealdgyth: Twas "By grace of God and right of conquest"  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 12:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't have to invent a rule, we should just follow the sources Jhood1 (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Which sources though - you're mentioning HBC but what do the various biographies of the monarchs say? What do the works on the time periods say? What do other secondary sources say? Have we consulted all the various works or just one source? (further comment added) what does the British Monarchy website use? What do other high quality websites use? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think the most authoritative sources are the HBC, Cheney's Handbook of Dates and the ODNB which cites the HBC. Generally, academic biographies such as those in Yale Monarchs series don't address the issue or provide precise day, month, year reign dates. General works such as the New Oxford History of England don't seem to address it which in later years is not surprising as we are talking of a difference of a single day. Robert Bartlett England under the Norman and Angevin Kings does address the issue about the reign not starting until the coronation in that period (pp. 123-125). The British Monarchy website seems to only provide years for reigns, but in general doesn't seem to be a high quality source as it doesn't give references or provide any authorship information. Searching online for extra sources I find the Oxford Companion to Family and Local History(2009) and the very old Chronology of History(1833)1 support the above date. On the whole I don't think these works as authoritative as the HBC and Cheney but they do point to a consensus among the sources. If anyone has another source that contradicts these sources then it would be very helpful to discuss it. Jhood1 (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Has anyone found a source that conflicts with the sources above? Also, does anyone want to make an argument against the dates on some other grounds (eg. could be confusing to readers)?Jhood1 (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me that arguments have already been made above, and the question is not whether there is a source that conflicts but whether we are prepared to accept the particular source that you want to use. Deb (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The dates must be attributable to a source due to WP:V and WP:OR Jhood1 (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

This has been an issue that has always nagged at me. When reading the biographies of Norman kings, it was clear that in those days, no one could claim to be king until annointed by a religious authority with the chrism. Henry I rushed to be crowned after the sudden death of William Rufus, beating the brother (Robert) with the arguably superiour claim (war ensued...); Henry's nephew seized the throne from his legal heiress Matilda by being crowned and annointed before she was. One of the reasons Matilda's status as ruler of England is disputed is the fact she was never crowned and annointed despite being the lawful heir when her father died in 1135. The rule of immediate succession was created in part to forestall these machinations and the civil wars that often ensued. Canada Jack (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The reign begins upon the death/abdication of the predecessor, not upon the coronation. Otherwise, Elizabeth II of the UK's reign would be listed as beginning June 2, 1953. We've been using the 'succession' dates for years. Let's not go ballistic & change the dates, causing myself (and others) to have a heart attack. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, an RFC should be opened on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I've listed the relevant academic sources above. All reliable sources follow the changes I made. You will note that Elizabeth II's reign has not been changed as she did accede on 6th February 1952. However, there has not been a consistent rule for how English monarchs reigns are dated since 1547. Here is a quote from the Handbook of British Chronology pp.30-31 explaining how the reigns are dated:

"Until, apparently, the reign of Edward I, no English king assumed the royal style before his coronation.

...(Section explaining evidence for this for Henry II, Richard I, John and Henry III, linked above)

It is, therefore, correct to equate accession and coronation in the case of all kings from William I to Henry III. On his father’s death, Edward I was far distant and the time of his return uncertain. Special measures were therefore obviously necessary to secure an orderly succession. The conception expressed in the maxim ‘le roi est mort, vive le roi’ had, however, not yet been reached, for there was an interregnum of four days before the new king’s peace was proclaimed and his reign was regarded as having begun. By 1307, quite clearly, political theory had made an advance towards the conception that the king never dies, for Edward II’s reign was assumed to begin on the day following his father’s death: and this conception, with some exception in times of revolution has been maintained ever since. The reign of Edward V was assumed to begin on the day of his father's death, and this rule has been invariably observed since the accession of Edward VI."

Please provide a source, of comparable reliability to the academic sources, before making changes Jhood1 (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

There are various websites which don't give the coronation date, but they are not reliable sources and they could have been copied from Wikipedia Jhood1 (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I've opened an Rfc at List of English monarchs. I hope you'll let the Rfc run its course (a month), by holding off from changing dates. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

There still needs to be a source due to WP:OR. Please give reasons backed up by sourcesJhood1 (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Henrietta Maria of France listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Henrietta Maria of France to be moved to Henriette Marie of France. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Mary I of England listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Mary I of England to be moved to Mary I. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Jane Seymour listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Jane Seymour to be moved to Jane Seymour, Queen of England. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Ælfflæd of Wessex listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Ælfflæd of Wessex to be moved to Ælfflæd, wife of Edward the Elder. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

James VI and I listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for James VI and I to be moved to James I and VI. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Æthelred of Wessex listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Æthelred of Wessex to be moved to Æthelred I, King of Wessex. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby to be moved to Lady Margaret Beaufort. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

GA reassessment

Richard III of England, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ——SerialNumber54129 17:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

James VI and I listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for James VI and I to be moved to King James. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

James VI and I listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for James VI and I to be moved to King James. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Wives of King Henry VIII listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wives of King Henry VIII to be moved to Wives of Henry VIII. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Elizabeth I of England listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Elizabeth I of England to be moved to Elizabeth I. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Henry VIII of England listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Henry VIII of England to be moved to Henry VIII. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

List of English monarchs listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of English monarchs to be moved to List of monarchs of England after the Norman Conquest. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 09:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Henrietta Maria of France listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Henrietta Maria of France to be moved to Henrietta Maria. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Elizabeth Stuart (daughter of Charles I) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Elizabeth Stuart (daughter of Charles I) to be moved to Elizabeth Stuart (born 1635). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hugh Despenser the Younger listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hugh Despenser the Younger to be moved to Hugh le Despenser the Younger. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

The Restoration listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Restoration to be moved to Stuart Restoration. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Merger Proposal

I have suggested, see Talk:Gentleman of the Bedchamber that the Lord of the Bedchamber with the Gentleman of the Bedchamber article. Both of these articles fall into this WikiProject. I would be grateful if people could contribute to the discussion, so as to, seek a consensus.DukeLondon (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Edith the Fair listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Edith the Fair to be moved to Edith Swanneck. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Edward I of England listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Edward I of England to be moved to Edward I. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Charles I of England listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Charles I of England to be moved to Charles I of England, Scotland, and Ireland. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Edward VI of England listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Edward VI of England to be moved to Edward VI. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Edward IV of England listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Edward IV of England to be moved to Edward IV. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Mary II of England listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Mary II of England to be moved to Mary II. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Æthelred I, King of Wessex listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Æthelred I, King of Wessex to be moved to Æthelred I of Wessex. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Cnut the Great listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Cnut the Great to be moved to Cnut, King of England. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Cnut the Great listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Cnut the Great to be moved to Cnut, King of England, Denmark and Norway. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Cnut the Great listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Cnut the Great to be moved to Cnut. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Ecgberht, King of Wessex listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Ecgberht, King of Wessex to be moved to Ecgberht of Wessex. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Edmund I listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Edmund I to be moved to Edmund I of England. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Edgar the Peaceful listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Edgar the Peaceful to be moved to Edgar, King of England. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Mary I of England listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Mary I of England to be moved to Mary I. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Stephen, King of England listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Stephen, King of England to be moved to Stephen of Blois. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

John, King of England listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for John, King of England to be moved to John of England. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:

year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19 Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67 Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8 Education 22 1 23 0.05 3 Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 27 14 41 0.52 38 Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3 Law 11 1 12 0.09 3 Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 14 10 24 0.71 40 Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31 Music 27 8 35 0.30 55 Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2 Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24 Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44 Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39 Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11 Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23 Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31 Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

(With apologies for not sorting the FA list down)

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Ælle of Sussex
2. Æthelbald of Mercia
3. Æthelberht of Kent
4. Ahmose I
5. Anne of Denmark
6. Augustus
7. Cædwalla of Wessex
8. Ceawlin of Wessex
9. Charles II of England
10. Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany
11. Constantine II of Scotland
12. David I of Scotland
13. Domenico Selvo
14. Eadbald of Kent
15. Eardwulf of Northumbria
16. Ecgberht, King of Wessex
17. Edward III of England
18. Elizabeth I
19. Family of Gediminas
20. George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore
21. George I of Great Britain
22. George I of Greece
23. George IV
24. George V
25. George VI
26. Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia
27. Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna of Russia
28. Ine of Wessex
29. James II of England
30. John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough
31. Mary II of England
32. Mary of Teck
33. Prince Louis of Battenberg
34. Princess Alice of Battenberg
35. Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine
36. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother
37. Sadruddin Aga Khan
38. Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough
39. Simeon I of Bulgaria
40. Wallis Simpson
41. Wiglaf of Mercia
42. Wihtred of Kent
43. Władysław II Jagiełło
44. Wulfhere of Mercia

Good article reassessment for Anne Boleyn

Anne Boleyn has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Femke (alt) (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Henry V of England listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Henry V of England to be moved to Henry V. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Coronation of William I listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Coronation of William I to be moved to Coronation of William the Conqueror. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Henrietta Maria listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Henrietta Maria to be moved to Henrietta Maria of France. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Edward III of England Featured article review

I have nominated Edward III of England for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Henrietta Maria of France listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Henrietta Maria of France to be moved to Henrietta Maria. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Charles Edward Stuart listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Charles Edward Stuart to be moved to Bonnie Prince Charlie. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Cnut listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Cnut to be moved to Canute. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Frederick V of the Palatinate listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Frederick V of the Palatinate to be moved to Wedding of Elizabeth Stuart and Frederick V of the Palatinate. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Anne Stuart (1637–1640) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Anne Stuart (1637–1640) to be moved to Anne Stuart (daughter of Charles I). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Edward I of England listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Edward I of England to be moved to Edward I. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.