Talk:List of English monarchs/Archive 2

Location
How on earth did List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England become the title of the article? Boo! Boo! john k 13:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you know how to change it back to its original title - List of monarchs of England - then please do so. TharkunColl 14:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Is that the place to move it to? List of English monarchs more closely parallels most of our other pages. john k 18:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I can change it if thats what people want. The List of English monarchs is currently a redirect, but I can delete the page. -- Alex ( Talk ) 12:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think anything's better than the current title, and yours is fine as long as by "English monarchs" it is understood to mean "monarchs of England" - since most of them weren't actually English. TharkunColl 23:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Table
What do people think of the table, under the Normans section? -- Alex ( Talk ) 23:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Very bad indeed. Why single one particular dynasty out for this treatment? TharkunColl 00:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats just to show what it could look like. It would eventually go for all dynasties (if people like it). What do you think? -- Alex ( Talk ) 00:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Epithets
I've just added "the Conqueror" and "Rufus". And remember that no pre-Norman kings were numbered by contemporaries, and relied solely on epithets to distinguish them. I'm also going to change William's accession date because he wasn't recognised as king by the Witan immediately after Hastings. TharkunColl 12:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Houses
The Houses of Lancaster and York were also Plantagenets, a fact that is reflected in the old article as it stands, but not in your version as it currently stands. Also, what criteria have you chosen for the start of reign? In some cases it appears to be coronation, in others the death of the predecessor. The true date is the proclamation. TharkunColl 16:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This version takes facts from two books, and the existing articles for the particular monarchs. They are often different so I have chosen the more "common" one. In the book I'm using Lancaster and York were separate houses. -- Alex ( Talk ) 17:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's looking very good so far by the way. We will be including the pre-Norman kings of course? TharkunColl 18:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It should do yes. Also, different colours might be better and the tables would have set widths. -- Alex ( Talk ) 20:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've made some changes in the nomeclature of the houses, because I think it's important to emphasise that those three houses were indeed all Plantagenets in the male line. I'd also like to clear up the accession dates as precisely as possible. The true date of accession was the proclamation - this sometimes corresponded with the death of the predecessor (sometimes, in medieval times, the next day), and sometimes with the coronation, and sometimes neither. We really do need to present accurate info here. A king entered upon his legal powers at proclamation. In modern times this always takes place as soon as the predecessor dies, but this has not always been the case. And another issue - I'm going to re-add the numbers for William etc. The only kings who should not be given numbers in this list are the pre-Norman ones. TharkunColl 12:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

MOS
What do you think of this, anyone who cares about the list in sandbox?


 * If information is unavailable, it is left out.
 * If the monarch ends his or her reign early, the date is put in the monarch column as well as the year, and a link is made to a note explaining the reasons.
 * If the date is approximate, it is written as c.Year (e.g. c.1028). There should only be one date written – not 1027/8 or 1027 or 1028. One should be chosen over the other, it looks messy otherwise. Date of death should be written as "about 60" or whatever.
 * Places should be limited to one word – e.g. Shelby, instead of Shelby, Yorkshire, to avoid clutter. If the place is important to the event (such as New Forest for William II) then New Forest should be written, and Hampshire left out.
 * Multiple marriages should be written as (1), (2) etc.

Looking good!
The basic structure seems to be almost done now. Is there any way of making all the boxes the same width all the way down, or does the wording automatically affect it? TharkunColl 17:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You can set the widths, yes. It would be best to do that once all the monarchs' details had been done. -- Majorly ( Talk ) 17:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay then. And after that, all we really really need to to is transfer the remaining info from the old article in a way that fits in with the new layout. TharkunColl 17:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Or the other way around... -- Majorly ( Talk ) 17:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whichever is easier. I noticed you removed Elfward altogether in the end. Is this because he was only King of Wessex? TharkunColl 17:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. He also has very little info about him, no picture... it'll spoil the list having him on there. -- Majorly ( Talk ) 17:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, since Elfward was only king of Wessex he probably shouldn't go in. But Edgar the Atheling was definitely recognised as king of England and therefore must go in, but he also has no picture. TharkunColl 17:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure to what transferral you refer but I went ahead and set some flexible, consistent column widths throughout the article. I think the layout should handle well future expansions and it was a much needed change (particularly for large screens). I introduced this template to make editing easier and found I had to header-split the Monarch column into Monarch and Portrait to ensure consistent width in those two previously header-colspanned columns. If someone knows how to maintain width consistency without this somewhat redundant header-split please do so! elzr 04:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Article is now complete
I've imported all the relevant info from the old article, re-worded it, and incorporated it. If you think it's ready, then we can paste the whole lot back into the article page. TharkunColl 11:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The widths shouldn't be too much of a problem. I'll paste it now. -- Majorly ( Talk ) 13:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review
Is there anything else that needs to be done before I submit this for a peer review? -- Majorly ( Talk ) 21:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't really think of anything. TharkunColl 09:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

OK any help to improve from suggestions in the peer review will be appreciated. -- Majorly ( Talk ) 21:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

House of Wessex (West Saxons)
should Monarches before 'Alfred the great' be added?


 * Egbert''' 802 – 839


 * Aethelwulf''' 839 – 855


 * Aethelbald''' 855 – December 20th 860


 * Aethelbert''' 860 – 866


 * Aethelred''' 866 – 871


 * They weren't English monarchs, just in Wessex so no not really. -- Majorly ( Talk ) 22:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

House vs Dynasty
Would it be appropriate to put Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Windsors houses under the Hanoverians section? After all, they are all part of the same dynasty. Rcog 05:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Lady Jane Grey?
Why is Lady Jane Grey listed as an official monarch? It directly contradicts another article in Wikipedia:

"Henry VII's great-granddaughter. Not generally noted as officially queen." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_in_the_British_Isles)

Plus, most historians and history books (plus the majority of public opinion) do not regard her as an official Queen of England. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.77.48.14 (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC).


 * We cannot use other articles on Wikipedia as evidence - they too might be just as wrong. And in this case, demonstrably so. Jane was proclaimed monarch, and this is the only possible criterion that any proper list can apply. TharkunColl 09:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? Most lists of English monarchs do not include here.  She was barely de facto queen (her authority was never recognized in most of the country), and certainly not de jure queen.  There is a semi-official list of English monarchs, and Jane isn't on it.   This is at least as valid a criterion as whether someone was proclaimed. john k 23:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well she's included as a monarch on the Royal website. Surely that's about as official as it's going to get? Proteus (Talk) 21:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Stupid royal website. If they want to suck, I  suppose there's not much for us to  do about it.  I think we ought to  be dubious about the canonical status of anyone who is universally known as "Lady Jane Grey" rather than "Queen Jane." Certainly there should be a footnote. john k 07:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Add one then and stop fussing.  Majorly  (o rly?) 10:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Popular names in themselves mean little. Anne Boleyn should properly be referred to as "Queen Anne", or at least "the Marchioness of Pembroke", but she gets commoner status as far as the public is concerned.  That Jane Grey is not generally known as "Queen Jane" does not, of itself, mean she wasn't the monarch. -- JackofOz 22:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

She was queen. Lady Jane Grey was officially proclaimed queen of England, reluctantly accepting the throne offered by the Privy Council, who oversaw such matters of high state. The Council had offered the throne to Jane instead of Mary, because of Mary's catholicism. However, two things quickly became clear to the Council - firstly, that John Dudley, the Duke of Northumberland (Jane's father-in-law) was trying to force Jane to make her husband (i.e. Dudley's son) the king of England rather than a mere duke under her, and secondly, that on hearing of Jane's proclamation, the public response in London was instead calling for Mary to become Queen. Nine days later, Mary came to London at the head of a large army and proclaimed herself Queen. By this time, an attempt by the Council to raise an army to stop Mary was deemed woefully inadequate and aborted (just 600 poorly equipped men marched out of London to meet the threat), and by the time of Mary's arrival, all but two of the Council members had abandoned Jane and hastily accepted Mary's claim as legitimate. For those insterested, http://www.ladyjanegrey.org has a lot more detail.--Streetyson 01:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think It's nessasary and courtous to say she was a queen even if it was only for nine days AND BECAUSE HER HEAD WAS PUT TO THE BLOCK JUST FOR BEING DECLARED A QUEEN.

Whilst I agree that she should named as a queen, she shouldn't be named because it is "courtous", let's get a grip and do the right thing because it it correct. And as for the phrase: "AND BECAUSE HER HEAD WAS PUT TO THE BLOCK JUST FOR BEING DECLARED A QUEEN." I dispair, (or should that be DISPAIR?). Being declared something does not make you that something, even if you are killed for it. Like I said, she should be listed as queen, but wiki had enough bad press without such subjective comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.173.37 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Being officially proclaimed queen" by the Privy Council is not sufficient to actually make her queen, since her accession contravened the law. The only criterion can be whether she was legally queen under the Act of Parliament which covered the succession at the time. Hence she was executed for treason. We should certainly leave her on the list since she was de facto queen, but I am going to put her name in italics or do a footnote or something to indicate she was not a "real" queen de jure. I won't go into much detail becuase interested readers can follow the link to her article. Richard75 (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured List
This looks like it should be featured, but that's just me. Just H 01:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Needs more references, and the wording needs tidying and rearranging. Eventually, but not just yet ;)  Majorly  (o rly?) 01:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad birthdate for George III?
Why doesn't the birthdate for George III (24 May 1738) match the birthdate (4 June 1738) given here, particularly since I've seen the 4 June birthdate given by other sources external to Wikipedia?

198.242.23.9 17:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Shawn


 * It's the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars, which in the 18th century was 11 days. 24 May is the date on the Julian calendar, which was in force in Britain until 1752. The other article is therefore wrong (or at least misleading). TharkunColl 18:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps some note should be made of that? It appears that, of the given birthdates in the list, some are in the Julian calendar, and some are in the Gregorian.  Is a casual reader of the article assumed to know when the change-over occurred, and to do the math in their head?  Just curious -- is there a policy that says when to use which calendar in what articles?  Or is it a free-for-all, left up to the individual contributer? 198.242.23.9 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Shawn


 * I cannot comment on other articles. In this list, all dates are Julian up to 3 September 1752, and all dates Gregorian from 14 September 1752. Those were the calendars in use in Britain at the time, and this list is about Britain. I don't necessarily think this needs commenting on, and especially not in what is essentially just a list. What would need commenting on is if we used Gregorian dates before 1752, because such were not used in Britain. TharkunColl 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation of monarch titles
Could someone please translate the various monarch titles listed in the title section? Would be neat. elzr 03:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of English monarchs
Hey there, if you include that template, can you please resize it so it fits on the page please, it's much too wide at the moment. Cheers.  Majorly   (hot!)  10:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This could be an alternative as well, although personally I don't mind scrolling. It is like a fold out page in a paper encyclopedia. Some charts need space. Further feedback on my talk page. Cheers, Erik Zachte 17:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've resized the template from 1600px to 1000px, which means 800x600ers and 1024x768ers will still need to do some minor vertical scrolling (in the case of 1024x768ers, because of Wikipedia's quite pointless sidebar), but it was as narrow as I could figure out how to made it. The graph definitely lost some clarity and sex appeal, but perhaps it is offset by most users being able to see most of it in one glance. What do you guys think?--elzr 18:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally don't like it. Surely the text list is fine (and I have to scroll). I want to get this featured, it's not really helping to be honest.  Majorly   (hot!)  20:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, that honestly comes as a shock to me. I was thinking this would really help to get this article featured. I did it based on a graph by E. J. Marey that I first saw in a Edward Tufte's classic The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. (Here's a pic of the graph). Now, Tufte is one of the world's foremost experts on information design and not only does he includes the graph in his selection of graphical excellence, but he gives it this compliment: "This superb construction of E.J. Marey brings together several sets of facts about English rulers into a time-series that conveys a sense of the march of history." (Here's a pic of the paragraph.) In my opinion it not only conveys such sense but it gives a much needed overview to an article over 50K long, bringing much of it alive in a way that a table could never hope to accomplish (take for instance the line mess right after Henry VIII).--elzr 21:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm put off because it's too wide for my monitor.  Majorly   (hot!)  22:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a matter of taste. It merely means a horizontal scroll bar is needed for lower resolution screens where a vertical scroll bar was needed all along. As I said earlier, it feels to me as a fold out page, quite acceptable in usage and amazingly expressive. I wonder what others think of it besides the three of us. Maybe move/copy this discussion to the talk page of the article? Erik Zachte 23:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is another user who is currently away who may or may not oppose it. If he agrees, we'd keep it, if not, we'll have to work something out.  Majorly   (hot!)  23:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm moving this discussion from my talk page to the talk page of the article—seemed more appropriate since the beginning. Hope to see what other people think about the graph. –elzr 00:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

 A timeline is available here: Timeline of English monarchs

Why isn't King Arthur listed?
Wasn't he a king of England? TheBlazikenMaster 20:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Leave a message to my talkpage as I don't have this on my watchlist.

Visual list leaves something out
It fails to show that Matilda was the great-great-granddaughter of Edmund Ironside, and therefore makes it seem as if there was no hereditary descent from the pre- to the post-Conquest monarchs. TharkunColl 11:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this was an important omission! I've added a new vertical joint from Matilda to Edmund Ironside. --elzr 22:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

England and Scotland
Why does this list continue after the Act of Union while the List of monarchs of Scotland does not. Isn't there a slight POV implication in such an illogical split.Dejvid 11:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the British monarchs from the article. I've requested a correction at Template: Timeline of English monarchs. GoodDay 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not vandalise this article. TharkunColl 22:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I did not vandalise this article. Anne (1707-14) to Elizabeth II, are British monarchs (successors of English and Scottish monarchs). Please don't make accusations toward me. GoodDay 01:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PS- if we're going to keep the British monarchs (George I to Elizabeth II); then this page should be moved to List of English and British monarchs. GoodDay 01:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This article contradicts Acts of Union 1707 - which describes the act as a merger of England and Scotland (not a 'take over' of Scotland, by England). GoodDay 14:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is factually wrong. There were no English or Scottish monarchs after 1707 — only British.  The article List of monarchs in the British Isles lists those from 1707 to the present day.  The List of Scottish monarchs is correct by stopping at 1707. --Bill Reid | Talk 15:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the actual date would be 1604, when James assumed the title "King of Great Britain". But in any case, the article reflects the essential continuity of the English-British monarchy, a continuity that doesn't really exist in the Scottish case. Having said that, I've no particular objection to retitling the article List of English and British monarchs - but you might want to run that by User:Majorly as well though. We had a huge discussion some time ago as to the best title when he added all the pictures and other info, and the consensus at the time was that "English monarchs" rather than "monarchs of England" already adequately covered the situation. TharkunColl 15:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think renaming would not be a good idea. But the info past 1603, or 1707 or whenever can be removed, and put into the list of monarchs of the British Isles, which would be more accurate I suppose.  Majorly  (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the article is ridiculously long. It would be better truncated, in my opinion, so long as the info is placed in a more suitable list.  Majorly  (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * List of monarchs in the British Isles is not geared up to contain such info, and we could not insert the photos without completely rewriting the whole thing. The only other alternative I can think of is to create a new article, called List of British monarchs (currently a ridirect), containing the info, with all the photos etc., from 1603. But then we must also remove the post-1603 info from the Scottish article as well, and I suspect that would be very strongly resisted. TharkunColl 16:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good alternative. But I don't know about resisting... has it been suggested on the talk page?  Majorly  (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggest an 'overhaul' of List of monarchs in the British Isles (to allow the photos). PS- British monarchs begin at 1707 (not 1603, which is 'only' a personal union). GoodDay 16:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, if List of British monarchs article is created; it will eventually be 'merged' with List of monarchs in the British Isles. GoodDay 16:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be impossible to squeeze the photos and other detailed info into the dual columns on that list, which is why these other articles exist. And 1604 is correct, because that's when James assumed the title "King of Great Britain" (look in the front of any King James Bible if you don't believe me). For further consistency between the three articles, we should also rename List of monarchs of Scotland to List of Scottish monarchs (currently a redirect). Both that and the English list will stop at 1603, and the new List of British monarchs will take it from there, with all the photos, to avoid loss of info. Sounds very neat and tidy in fact. TharkunColl 16:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)Not possible to suggest - it needs to be done. That work took... months, and I'd rather it wasn't just reverted like this. List of monarchs in the British Isles is not the same as List of British monarchs, so I don't think it should, or would be merged.  Majorly  (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, is there even a purpose to List of monarchs in the British Isles? It's just a collection of other lists, which are better.  Majorly  (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that List of monarchs in the British Isles is a terrible, chaotic and confusing article - a typical example of Wiki-pedantry gone mad - with a stupid and incorrect title (where are the Welsh and Irish ones?). We should ignore it and concentrate on these ones. TharkunColl 16:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You can add the Welsh and Irish there, if you want (they'd belong). Furthermore 1707 is when 'England' and 'Scotland' became Great Britain (thus 'monarch of England and Scotland, became 'monarch of Great Britain'). GoodDay 16:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I'll AfD that list - it's obselete.  Majorly  (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarify; which list? GoodDay 16:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * List of monarchs in the British Isles.  Majorly  (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The title "King of Great Britain" was in use from 1604. Look at the royal website itself (can't remember the address offhand, Google it), it lists monarchs of Great Britain from 1603. That is the authoritative source, which we must follow. TharkunColl 16:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Re the other page, how about making it into a list of lists page: rename it Lists of monarchs in Britain and Ireland and list the large number of monarch lists on one page. It also has a couple of hundred incoming links need fixing. Anyway, 1707 not 1604: there was no kingdom of Great Britain in 1604 for James to be king of, just royal vanity to be assuaged. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But this list is not about kingdoms, it's about kings (i.e. monarchs). Therefore, by his title, 1604 is correct. I like your other idea though. TharkunColl 16:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Howabout stating 'self-styled King of Great Britain' next to James' name? PS- did his Stuart successor also use that style. Also take note James I of England article (not James I of Great Britain) personally I feel it should be James I of England and VI of Scotland. GoodDay 16:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl, this is an encyclopedia, so no room for inaccuracies. James was King James VI of Scotland and King James I of England, he was not King of Great Britain. Yes, James did 'style' himself as 'King of Great Britain' but to quote from his article "''In April 1604, however, the Commons refused on legal grounds his request to be titled 'King of Great Britain'. In October 1604, he assumed the title 'King of Great Britain' by proclamation rather than statute, though Sir Francis Bacon told him he could not use the style in 'any legal proceeding, instrument or assurance'." After the political union of Scotland with England in 1707 the terms King of Scotland and King of England with regard to contemporary monarchs of the time ceased to exist. They could only be referred in a historical context, i.e. before 1707. Just because you can't fit photos easily in to the List of British monarchs article is no reason for continuing with factual inaccuracies. As for removing "post-1603 info from the Scottish article" is concerned is nonsensical - the Scottish article is 100% accurate.

Majorly, you want to delete the only article that actually gives the complete list of monarchs that is a factual and complete listing of monarchs both sides of the border is incredible. --Bill Reid | Talk 17:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * More incredible is you quote Wikipedia as an accurate source! The article is a complete mess and how am I to know that it is factual? There's not a single reference.  Majorly  (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, that hurt (questioning Wikipedia as an accurate source); As for the 'lack of' references? get some. GoodDay 19:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a user created wiki - hence anything could be added to it. It's not going to be 100% reliable, unfortunately.  Majorly  (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, Majorly, the blockquote comes from the article about King James, not one of the List articles that's in dispute here, and it has two footnotes, nos. 57 and 58. Here's the "nowiki" version of part of the relevant section:
 *  In April 1604, however, the Commons refused on legal grounds his request to be titled "King of Great Britain". In October 1604, he assumed the title "King of Great Britain" by proclamation rather than statute, though Sir Francis Bacon told him he could not use the style in "any legal proceeding, instrument or assurance". 
 * Hope this helps. BencherliteTalk 19:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was never denying it wasn't true - in fact I don't know myself. But you shouldn't rely on Wikipedia for accurate information. It can and is often wrong, which is why we are a collector rather than a producer.  Majorly  (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be the end-point of research. But there seemed to be some discussion at cross-purposes earlier (e.g. "The article is a complete mess and how am I to know that it is factual? There's not a single reference." when the quote came from a Featured Article and had two references), hence my interjection. BencherliteTalk 22:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Myself and Tharky, are having the same dispute 'below', concerning Queen Anne. GoodDay 23:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove British monarchs from article
Is it agreed, to remove 'George I to Elizabeth II' from this article? GoodDay 17:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So long as the info is kept, yes.  Majorly  (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It would need to be moved to a new List of monarchs of Great Britain and the United Kingdom article, no? Certainly it shouldn't be deleted. There's no rush because there will be a heap of links need looking at. Let's wait at least until the AfD is over. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If that article is 'not deleted' AND/OR if a List of British monarchs article is created, then we should 'remove'. PS- in the 'interim', may I 'add' a sub-title Briths monarchs for Anne to Elizabeth II (noting Anne's status change in 1707)? GoodDay 17:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead & added an 'interim solution'; while the fate of List of monarchs in the British Isles is being decided (and/or until a list of British monarchs article is created). GoodDay 18:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Anne did not have two reigns, and breaking monarchs' reigns up is one of the features of List of monarchs in the British Isles that makes it so abysmal and misleading. Each monarch on this list has one info box, and one only, even if they had more than one reign (such as Henry VI and Edward IV).

I propose three articles:


 * List of English monarchs
 * We already have this article. Simply remove (when the time is right) the British monarchs.


 * List of Scottish monarchs (currently a redirect to List of monarchs of Scotland)
 * Simply 'move' that article to List of Scottish monarchs (no need to create).


 * List of British monarchs (currently a redirect to List of monarchs in the British Isles)
 * Of course, this list would be Anne to Elizabeth II. GoodDay 22:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We appear to be in broad agreement (though I'm still not sure that 1603 would not be a more logical date to choose - just like the royal website, which is a pretty important authority). We will also need to redesign the Scottish list to look the same, with the same formatting etc., as the other two. TharkunColl 22:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The latter title is perfectly correct for both GB, and also the UK from 1801, as both were British. It will simply consist of the latter portion of this current list, with exactly the same info and formatting. We will also need to standardise List of monarchs of Scotland, by retitling it and altering it so that it has the same design as the other two lists. TharkunColl 22:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But you do agree, that Anne ceased to be Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland on May 1st, 1707; and became Queen of Great Britain and Ireland? (as for the edits I made - they were meant to be 'temporary'). GoodDay 22:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What happened on 1 May 1707 was a union of the parliaments. Anne was already Queen of Great Britain. But yes, a change did occur on that date. Doesn't mean she should have two info boxes though, any more than Henry VI or Edward IV. TharkunColl 22:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * She was not already Queen of Great Britain; You can't be King/Queen of a Kingdom, that doesn't exist (Kingdom of Great Britain, didn't exist until 1707). GoodDay 22:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * She was Queen of Great Britain, and even called herself that. Great Britain is an island, not just a kingdom. TharkunColl 22:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, she wasn't - Check her article Anne of Great Britain for proof. PS-see discussion above - concerning James I/VI's claims of being 'King of Great Britain'. GoodDay 22:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles do not constitute proof of anything. If you have a king James Bible just look on the title page. James was king of Great Britain. Remember that this article is about kings, not kingdoms. TharkunColl 23:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean those paragraphs at those articles (Anne of Great Britain & James I of England) are incorrect? PS- perhaps this discussion belongs at 'those' articles. In the meantime - that 'King of Great Britain' style was only a personal style. Your arguments are at odds with those articles. GoodDay 23:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is completely irrelevent that my arguments are at odds with Wikipedia articles, because Wikipedia is not an authority. "Personal style" or not, that's what the monarchs called themselves. This is a list of monarchs, not kingdoms. Incidentally, I think it's also worth pointing out that the first legislative union between England and Scotland was enacted in 1653, but this was dissolved in 1659. So if we don't start the list in 1603, we'll need two articles. TharkunColl 23:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've started 'discussions' at James I of England and Anne of Great Britain, your arguments are interesting - I had to get others opinons. PS- You question Wikipedia's reliability? Yet you 'edit it'? I'm getting confused. GoodDay 23:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I've restored the 'interim edits'. Since Anne was first an English monarch [1702-07] and then British monarch [1707-14]. Until the respective monarch's article say otherwise. GoodDay 23:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Anne was first an English and Scottish monarch [1702-07] and then British monarch [1707-14]. (Just for accuracy.) --Bill Reid | Talk 07:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to put and Scottish monarch, but didn't as this deals with the list of English monarchs only (Anne is listed on the Scottish list article, for her role as Scottish monarch). GoodDay 13:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is disputing that the Kingdom of GB was created in 1707. That is not the point at all, but rather its the design of the list itself. It is not strictly chronological, and each monarch only has one info box. We don't give George III two when the UK was created in 1801, and we don't give Henry VI and Edward IV two boxes even though they each had two separate reigns. To give Anne two boxes is to misunderstand what the list is for. It quite clearly already notes the change that occured in 1707. TharkunColl 07:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For the sake of 'not breaking up' Queen Anne's reigns - howabout when the British monarchs are removed from this article, Anna as the last English monarch will have her reign as 1702-14 (with a note of the changed status in 1707). Likewise, a note (pointing out the 1707 status change) will be added to Queen Anne's (1702-14) reign on the List of British monarchs article (when created)? GoodDay 13:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added in facts about Queen Anne's changing status in 1707, without dividing her into 'two' images. This should be acceptable, until the British monarchs are removed. GoodDay 13:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

King of Great Britain
Parliament in 1604 had no power or right to defy the king when it came to royal titles; much less than the French king when it came to the English king styling himself King of France. There is an anchronistic view of Parliamentary supremacy being discussed on this talk page. User:TharkunColl is thankfully following the lead I represented before. James was above all, the means by which the Union was founded. The precedent was from the heirs of Fernando of Aragon and Isabel of Castile. Kingdoms were genealogical in those days, much like the issues surrounding the Treaty of Verdun. Anybody who cites authors that conflict with this particular convention, are propagating inaccurate information. Who cares if the public offices did not unite until Queen Anne? The kingdom itself did, but had little to hold it together and which is why the Civil War happened and turned the place upside down. Perhaps, although James had the senior claim by blood to the Crown, his parents were excluded by Henry VIII from succession and the alternative was Lady Anne Stanley's line. Her claim was unrealistic and outdated, since James was twice descended from Henry VII and twice a Stuart. There were political and religious factors that meant a British Union was imminent, although the English establishment would have rather there be an English dynasty take over Scotland instead of the opposite which did in fact happen. Lord Loxley 00:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So you're also arguing James I of England article, should be James I of Great Britain (with accompaning paragraphs)? GoodDay 00:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There was 'no takeover' -England and Scotland united to become Great Britain (see Acts of Union 1707). GoodDay 00:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In the earliest days of unification, the Scots were frightened out of their wits at what would happen. They feared becoming a satellite state to be drained for English bellies and other nightmares.  The English were okay with the Scottish king succeeding to Elizabeth, so long as he followed English customs and dictates.  Of course, James would have none of it.  Usually, it is seen as a somewhat even trade-off that the King of Scots should become a king of England, but the Scots would never have a King of England become a king of Scots.  The balance of power only allowed for certain things.
 * Yes, the titles of certain articles is patently unfair. James was King of Britain, France and Ireland on British coinage.  Unfortunately, Wikipedians think they know better.  Lord Loxley 00:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but - the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist in 1707; they were 'united' (Scottish duress or not) and became the Kingdom of Great Britain. GoodDay 00:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Resorting to Wikipedia as a baseline for facts is not the best idea. The Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland ceased to exist in 1707, but the Kingdoms were already united in 1603/04.  The whole Civil War was entirely about this fact.  Parliamentarians were furious with the Crown for having a great disparity of power over them, since they had not invented an equal and would not until "constitutional monarchy" was invented in 1707.  Please, look beyond anachronistic depictions of parliamentary triumphalism.  Look at it from the times in which they lived, not Parliamentary apologetics that purport the royal authority pre-1707 to be null or illegal and nonexistent.  Please, look at history how it happened, not how the Parliamentarians wished it had happened according to their theory of proper course of events.  Lord Loxley 00:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In any case, the two cultures were not totally united until the Parliamentary Union with Ireland in 1801 and thereafter, the United Kingdom is fully with a one track mind: the domination of Ireland instead of Anglo-Scottish quibbling.  Of course, it was only a faux union with the Irish, since they bucked out real quick (150 years of insubordinance).  Lord Loxley 01:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See ya in the morning (I'm North American). Gotta get my sleep. GoodDay 01:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Need anybody be reminded that Great Britain has shared a coat of arms and flag since King James's Union of Crowns/Kingdoms? Some don't know that his mother and her first two husbands were the first Scottish rulers to claim (supported by English Catholics) the English Crown (which included their royal mint), but there were definitely two separate kingdoms at the time, since there was Elizabeth on the English Throne and so the Royal claim was devolved onto Mary's son James, who waited until Elizabeth was dead before pressing his claim.  Lord Loxley 01:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Systemic bias is a persistent problem, especially with the rise of separatists co-opting all discourse related to the British Isles since Labour took over. See Talk:Kingdom_of_England.  Lord Loxley 01:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that James VI and I called himself 'King of Great Britain'; it is also a fact that both the English and Scottish parliaments advised him that this could not be done legally so both countries rather reluctantly started looking at how official union might take place. The fact is the two kingdoms were not united in 1603 - 4, the kingdoms shared the same monarch, that's all. One of the main pushes in England for unification of the two states was that the English feared that the Scots might put someone on the Scottish throne that they didn't want. (see here) Charles II was crowned in Scotland in 1651 (forcing Cromwell to invade Scotland) demonstrating that Scotland was an independent kingdom. When William of Orange was offered the Kingdom of Scotland, he became William II of Scotland and William III of England but the Scots (in theory) could have chosen another legitimate claimant. The unification of the kingdoms took place in 1707 and that is the starting point of the Kingdom of Great Britain. --Bill Reid | Talk 10:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, James was concurrently 'two monarchs' from 1603 to 1625. Basically, he wore 'two' hats. GoodDay 13:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * He may well have had two crowns (or hats, as you call them) but he most assuredly was not "two monarchs"! Such an idea is preposterous. TharkunColl 14:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not preposterous - James to Anne were 'concurrently' monarch of England and monarch of Scotland. They were indeed 'dual monarchs'. GoodDay 17:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that if one were to demarcate a dual, confederate royalty from the future union, it should be said to have ended with the introduction of foreign Protestant dynasties. Anne should not be considered any different from her sister or father and brother, but it should be seen from a male perspective.  William of Orange and George of Denmark-Norway were what made the political situation different, since they were not Stuarts and not native either.  If they had children, I am sure that the consensus would have developed to present them as the first British kings.  They had no Scottish or English past to taint or tarnish them as belonging to one or the other, unlike the Stuarts.  Thus, they would have been unitary monarchs from the start.  Lord Loxley 05:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, I rescind. James was no more King of Britain than Oliver Cromwell was Lord Protector of Britain. James was imported to England and hated by the English, whom decided to rebel against what turned out to be a bad choice. Then they forced Cromwell down the Scots' throats. It was a battle for Britain--Britain in the making. Lord Loxley 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

List of monarchs in the British Isles
As I suspected, List of monarchs in the British Isles seems very unlikely to get deleted (unfortunately). We cannot simply put a link after 1707 from this article to that, since we will lose all the eminently useful info boxes on the Hanoverians and Windsors, and create a very confusing situation that will not help our readers one bit. If we can't create a new article called List of British monarchs then I propose a very simple solution that should solve all the problems of nomenclature - just re-name this article List of English and British monarchs. Note that this is a red link (i.e. currently unoccupied) so we won't even need an admin to do it for us [NB: it isn't red any more - see below]. Does anybody want to do it, or shall I? TharkunColl 07:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've moved it. This should avoid all future arguments over nomenclature. TharkunColl 10:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And I moved it back. There's no deadline, so we can wait to see what comes out of the AfD. And if you do move things, please fix any double-redirects which result. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And now you've made it into an occupied page. Thanks. TharkunColl 11:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry? List of British monarchs will be created. Anne to Elizabeth II, will make up that list. Like Angus said, once the 'British monarchs' are removed, the article here will truly be List of English monarchs. PS- see my Anne idea, for when List of British monarchs is created. GoodDay 13:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a lot better. Keep it simple, and have only one info box per monarch. TharkunColl 14:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Scottish and English lists
When we have List of English monarchs and the new List of British monarchs, then we'll need to standardise List of Scottish monarchs as well. The consensus seems to be to run the English and Scottish lists to 1707 - which is fair enough I suppose - but where do we start them? Currently different criteria are being used. Kenneth I is "traditionally" regarded as the first Scottish king, but in fact he only reigned in the northern half of what we now call Scotland. It wasn't until the 10th century that Strathclyde was added, for example. So if we are starting with the first "traditional" king, then we should start the English list with Egbert of Wessex. Or how about Offa of Mercia, who proclaimed himself King of the English in 774? TharkunColl 14:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's always room for expansion on those articles. We'd have to make sub-sections for those monarchs (Wessex, Essex etc in the English article & Strathclyde etc in the Scottish article), since those 'little' Kingdoms have short monarch lists'. GoodDay 15:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean monarchs of the small kingdoms, but rather those monarchs who have a claim to be the "first" king of either Scotland or England. Currently different criteria are being used in the two lists. TharkunColl 15:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In the English list, perhaps Athelstan should be lists as the 'first King of England'. GoodDay 15:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The term King of Alba was not used until 900, and Scotland wasn't unified into its present form until 1018. Basically, to cut a long story short, the first few names on the Scottish list were never really kings of Scotland. They were, in fact, just kings of the Picts, and are listed as such by contemporaries. This would be like listing all the kings of Wessex from Egbert onwards (which is, in fact, often done in many lists, because Egbert was Bretwalda). TharkunColl 15:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Scottish list should begin with Malcolm II. The Alba, Strathclyde, Pictish (and other pre-1018 monarchs) -belong at List of monarchs in the British Isles. GoodDay 15:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the ones that were only ever kings of the Picts, but I suspect my edit will not hold. TharkunColl 15:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone knows that Kenneth MacAlpin was the first King of Scotland. Simply removing the early entries means that someone who doesn't know any better, armed with a reliable source, will add them back, only without the excuses. I can't think of any good reason to start the list with Máel Coluim mac Cináeda. Do we have a source for that? I can find "reliable sources" published in recent times for each of Giric, Domnall, and Causantín. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyone knows is not good enough. Everyone knows that Elizabeth II is "Queen of England". Kenneth and his successors were kings of the Picts. Even the article admits this. TharkunColl 15:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, starting with Malcolm II won't do - let's start with the traditional -Kenneth I in Scotland & Athelstan in England - PS Elizabeth II isn't 'Queen of England', she's Queen of the United Kingdom (Canada, Australia etc - though that's another issue). GoodDay 16:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was using Elizabeth II as "Queen of England" as an example of why everyone knows isn't good enough. We can't start the Scottish list with Kenneth because he didn't unify Scotland. Either we start both lists with the unifiers - Malcolm II and Athelstan, or both lists with the "traditional" first king - Kenneth and Egbert. To do otherwise would be to apply a different criteria for each list, which makes a complete mockery of this drive for absolute accuracy. Incidentally, if the editors of the Scottish list are not going to allow us to remove the Pictish kings, or change the article title, then there is no way I'll agree to any truncation of the English list, either at one end or the other. TharkunColl 17:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's either Kenneth I and Egbert OR Malcolm II and Athelstan. We need 'equal' treatment of these pre-British 'counterpart' monarchies articles. GoodDay 18:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not an exercise in horse-trading. There is at best a feeble case for starting the English list with Ecgberht and rather good one for starting the Scottish list with Kenneth. All the assertions in the world are no use without some credible sources to support them. Let's see some citations. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Egbert of Wessex was described in 828/829 as 'Bretwalda' . How's that for King Egbert's inclusion? If we're keeping 'Kenneth I' in a starter in Scotland. GoodDay 19:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PS- I'd start this article with Egbert of Wessex (since the Scottish article is adament, with their starter being Kenneth I). GoodDay 19:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can never prove a negative, but here's what I found Ecgberht indexed as on a cursory check: Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England ("Ecgberht, king of Wessex"), Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England ("Egbert K. Wessex"), Campbell's Anglo-Saxon State ("Egbert, King of West Saxons"), Yorke's Kings and Kingdoms ("Egbert, k. of West Saxons"), Kirby's Earliest English Kings ("Ecgberht, King of the West Saxons"), Williams' Kingship and Government ("Ecgberht, King of Wessex"), PASE ("King of the West Saxons"), Blair's Introduction to A-S England ("Egbert, king of Wessex"), Yorke's Conversion of Britain ("Ecgberht, king of Wessex"), Cunliffe's Wessex to AD 1000 ("Egbert, king"). Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, and I've got encylopedias that also list Egbert as the recognized 'first monarch of England'- King Egbert of Wessex it is. GoodDay 20:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's go with Egbert. TharkunColl 22:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Egbert's place in the traditional list is comparable, I think, to Kenneth I's in Scotland. I've never seen a list that started with Athelstan. john k 00:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What about Bretwaldas? The old Roman rule of Britain was split between the Welsh and English rulers, each of which claimed to be rightfully king of the Britons.  Why are king lists from late or ex-Roman conventions not included?  Why do the lists usually start concurrent to the reign of Charlemagne in the ex-Western Roman Empire, when we accept the Eastern Roman Empire continuity?  We should note the bridges which converted Britannia into England, which would include discussion of foederatii and Bretwaldas.  This type of discussion is usually reserved for academics and not enough is exposed to the general masses of readership, who are assumed to be the wrong audience.  But aren't people like Meroveus, or the kings listed in the works of Gregory of Tours interesting or relevant?  Lord Loxley 05:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's any number of logical places to begin a list.  However, traditionally, the list starts in one of two places - either with Egbert or with William the  Conqueror.  I think we all agree that starting in 1066 is inadequate, so that leaves us with Egbert.  One can certainly make an argument for several other Saxon rulers, post-Edward, as a proper starting point - Alfred, Edward the Elder, Athelstan, and Edgar come particularly to mind as possibilities - but I've rarely seen a list that started with any of these (if anything, Alfred is the most likely, not Athelstan).  And I've pretty much never seen a list that includes Bretwaldas.  Of course the earlier history is interesting.  But this list should aim for conciseness and familiarity.  The earlier stuff can be discussed elsewhere. john k 05:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Beyond this, I'll just say that while Egbert is not usually designated as a king of England, but rather as a King of Wessex, or of the West Saxons, he was Bretwalda, and is usually put in lists as the first king of the house of wessex, which is normally listed as the first dynasty ruling  England.  john k 05:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that it is most difficult, since all of these dynasties were tribal in origin. For instance; Offa, Egbert, Sweyn, William and Stephen (Geoffrey of Anjou was of the same tribal root as Stephen) all began eras of "English history", but were representing Angles, Saxons, Danes, Normans and Franks rather than one universal image of English.  A different thing happened in France, when apart from Raoul, none of the kings of France were kings of Burgundians or Visigoths, yet they are accounted as speaking for all the "French".  When does a properly unified "English" dynasty appear, but perhaps with the Tudors--and the usurping Dudley?  It is a blip on the radar, for in came and went the Stuarts, whom counted themselves Gaels.  Lord Loxley 06:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Tudors, of course, were Welsh, but I don't see what relevance this really has. john k 14:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How can anyone describe Egbert as the first king of England. The best that he could be described as is king of the Anglo-Saxons and he only managed to hold onto that for about a year. England didn't exist in Egbert's day; people then had no notion of statehood. The first that could probably be described as King of the area that would become England was Athelstan. --Bill Reid | Talk 16:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If we start with Alfred or Athelstan? The usage of 'Kenneth I' (a Pictish monarch) at the List of monarchs of Scotland, would be disputed again. That's what caused the discussion here. GoodDay 20:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * When is it a case of splitting hairs? 02:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Loxley (talk • contribs)
 * I suggest you re-read the List of monarchs of Scotland and you will see that it states According to tradition, the first King of Scots was Kenneth MacAlpin (Cináed mac Ailpín), who founded the state in 843, although this is no longer taken seriously by historians. It is legitimate to list the dynasty that ultimately led to the King of Scotland but to suggest, as the List of English monarchs does that Egbert is Traditionally, the first King of England is just nonsense. --Bill Reid | Talk 07:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Egbert was part of the West Saxon dynasty which created the Kingdom of England, and he is listed as the first king of England in numerous reference sources. His position is precisely analagous to Kenneth, except that unlike Kenneth, he actually did rule the whole of the area that became his respective kingdom, after receiving the submission of Mercia and Northumbria in 829 - i.e. he was Bretwalda, and is listed as such by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Conversely, Kenneth never ruled anywhere south of the Forth-Clyde line. Egbert is included in this list in order that this and the Scottish list use exactly the same criteria in determining who to include. TharkunColl 08:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Egbert was, like Kenneth was in Scotland, part of a dynasty that ultimately led to the kingdom of England and very briefly ruled over the other kingdoms. The source you cite is a web site so can you provide a modern 20th/21st century history book that actually states that Egbert was the fist king of England.  As I said he ruled over the other kingdoms for a few months but that didn't make him king of England - England wasn't even a concept let alone a reality. If you want to have the two articles to specify kingship in the same way, then remove the statement regarding Egbert being the first king of England because he wasn't. --Bill Reid | Talk 08:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Kenneth wasn't King of Scotland - please remove him from the list. And you're wrong about England not being a "concept" or "reality" - there was a unified English church and a national identity based on language and culture, as exemplified by Bede's History of the English Church and People witten in the early 8th century. Political unification, when it came, was based on this much older shared culture and identity. TharkunColl 09:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you read what I wrote above? I quoted from the Scottish article - According to tradition, the first King of Scots was Kenneth MacAlpin (Cináed mac Ailpín), who founded the state in 843, although this is no longer taken seriously by historians.   Kenneth was a king of the Picts, Egbert was a King of Wessex who managed for a very short time to rule over the other kingdoms.  I am not arguing over church or culture, they were all Anglo-Saxons, for Pete's sake!  Of course there was later political unification but it sure as heck didn't happen under Egbert.  He simply was not the first king of England.  Period. --Bill Reid | Talk 10:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So why is Kenneth still in the Scottish list then, when the article itself even admits that he shouldn't be? You can't have it both ways. Anyway, here's a published quote for Egbert, since you asked for one:


 * "Most chronologies of the kings of England start with Egbert, chiefly because he was the first West Saxon king to exercise authority over most of England." British Monarchs, Mike Ashley (Robinson Publishing Ltd., 1998) TharkunColl 10:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Again read what I said, I didn't say that Egbert be removed, I said the statement that he was the first king of England wasn't correct and if you wanted the two articles to correspond then that statement should be removed.  Regarding your quote, Most chronologies of kings of England start with Egbert — thats right, he and his successors led to the eventual formation of England just as Kenneth was at the root of the MacAlpin dynasty; chiefly because he was the first West Saxon king to exercise authority over most of England, where was the England that he exercised power over? There wasn't one but he was briefly king over the Anglo-Saxons.  Even in Alfred's time Wessex and Mercia were separate — no state called England is anywhere to be seen.--Bill Reid | Talk 12:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do "most chronologies" exclude Ælfweard? This one does, although the website it uses as a reference does not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He should be included; just because he was uncrowned, doesn't disqualify him (see. Edward V). GoodDay 21:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, yes, most chronologies exclude Ælfweard. john k 01:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Template: Timeline
Of course, we'll have to fix up this template. Add in the monarchs who reigned before Alfred and remove 'George I to Elizabeth II'. GoodDay 22:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Cromwells and Foreign Protestants
I don't think that the former is royal enough, nor the latter distinctly English enough for inclusion in this list. If there was a British monarchs list, then I would include the Cromwells as the beginning (like the Stadholder dynasty in Holland), with their preferred German dynasties of the Wittelsbachs, Nassaus, Oldenburgs, Estes etc. being the distinction. None of those families (except Cromwells) come from Britain, but they are reckoned as being important for the distinctly British (eg. Parliamentary or Constitutional) monarchy. They are not important to the image of England (Tudors) or Scotland (Stuarts). I think this POV is a good compromise, because it is fraudulent to depict the Stuarts as English. Lord Loxley 00:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was wondering about the Cromwells inclusion aswell. If they're here, they should be at the Scottish article too. Also Richard's succeeding Oliver seems monarchial. GoodDay 00:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * PS - a British monarchs list wouldn't include the Cromwells (such a list would begin at 1707). GoodDay 01:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't get so hung up on dating and cafeteria conventions. The dynasto-nationalist situation is paramount to distinguish one from the other. Lord Loxley 01:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, and the Stuarts and Plantagenets are? john k 01:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. This is about the transformation of two separate polities into one, which required regime change and a constitutional/parliamentary supremacy. Nothing like it was done before. Lord Loxley 04:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Loxley, is it just me but I find it extremely difficult to understand what you are saying. Do you want to air-brush the foreign monarchs from history because if you do you have to deal with things as they were, not how you would have liked things to be.  Nationality is unimportant.    As for Cromwell, he was an interruption in the monarchy but the Commonwealth period can't be ignored in the English list.  He cannot appear in the Scottish list because he was not Lord Protector in Scotland but a foreign occupier.  King Charles II was the crowned king of Scotland in exile.  The British monarchy began in 1707 not with Cromwell. --Bill Reid | Talk 07:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Arguably, Charles II was king of Scotland in exile. But also, arguably (and indeed, this is the official de jure position of the United  Kingdom today) he was also king of England in exile (though obviously uncrowned).  The Commonwealth formally included both England and Scotland.  I'm not sure the distinction you're making is tenable. john k 16:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The Cromwells and their Prime Minister types were the start of a new era. They wanted the new monarchs from Germany, which came at the same time as the invention of Great Britain as one kingdom and parliament. The Stuarts were Scottish leftovers. Lord Loxley 15:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "The Cromwells and their Prime Minister types?"  What in the world are you talking about? john k 16:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You've lost me again I'm afraid.  "The Cromwells and their Prime Minister types were the start of a new era"  OK, the Protectorate was different, in a sense, but Cromwell became in everything but name, a monarch and ensured the succession of his son. I can't see how you can call him a Prime Minister type - a premier league autocrat more like. Some of the catholic Stuarts ( the Scottish leftovers) were approached to see if they would convert, which they refused, so I wonder who was the they who wanted the new German monarchs? Religion was the dominant factor, not Prime Minister types. Oh, BTW, the first British PM didn't arrive on the scene until 1721. --Bill Reid | Talk 16:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Loxley's getting the 'Cromwells' era 1649-59, mixed up with the Unification of Great Britain (1707) and the arrival of the Hanoverians (1714). GoodDay 20:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not a Whig...but those were a sequence of events which were important for the Whig victory and can easily be understood to be a Whiggish "progression". It's interesting how some of you probably believe that Mary and Anne were queens in their own right, when the new establishment simply used them as props to hold up imported families on the throne. The people who engineered the "Glorious Revolution" were the scions of the Roundheads. Neither Charles II, nor James II had uninterrupted reigns. Each one had to undergo opposition from the new aristocracy, whether by the Protectors or their political heirs that eventually became permanent office at 10 Downing St. This is known. Lord Loxley 00:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * LL, this is the talk page of the List of English monarchs. What on earth has the Whigs got to do with who was king or queen of England.  If you want to discuss the intrigues of the Glorious Revolution, go to its talk page. The reason I got involved in this discussion in the first place was you wanted, right at the top of this section, to change the list into something meaningless.  It won't happen.  I'll leave you to your meanderings. --Bill Reid | Talk 09:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, Mary was a prop for William III. But what "imported family" was being propped up by Anne?  Her husband was  a nonentity, and she wouldn't even let the Hanoverians visit England.  Beyond that, I still have no idea what you're talking about, so what Bill Reid says. john k 15:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My oh my, the ignorance is everywhere. Has nobody learnt the history of constitutional monarchy (and the British example in particular) in grade school? Bah. No wonder Wikipedia sucks! Lord Loxley 13:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I never went to grade school - we don't actually have them in England. But you are of course right, in a sense. The English and the Stuarts never got on very well, with the latters' tendencies towards misgovernment, autocracy, Catholicism, secret French alliances etc., and the English made three attempts to get rid of them (or at least rid them of their power). The first ended in disaster (Civil War and Cromwell), the second was more successful (Glorious Revolution and Bill of Rights), and the third was definitive (Act of Settlement and Act of Union). That the succeeding Hanoverians were dull, stupid and German was a small price to pay - indeed, it only served to help the cause of parliamentary supremacy. TharkunColl 15:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well Bill and John, the daughters were used to produce heirs and a facade of legitimacy. As TharkunColl states, they tried several times. Originally without success, their machinations eventually accrued worthwhile results. The monarchy was no longer a Scottish party and the parliament was no longer an English party. There was a balance because the imports had no previous quarrels or feuds with anybody in Britain, although of British descent merely from the Crown. Once and for all, the kingdom could be considered British instead of English or Scottish factions vying for control. The idea that Anne of all monarchs could be "British", just because the Parliaments united is a ridiculous and arbitrary notion. Nothing set her apart from her sister insofar as monarchy was concerned; the only reason William was made king and George wasn't, had been due to William being a grandson of Charles. George was chosen because of the Scottish connection with the Danish monarchy, but the other wing of the new order was the Bohemian/Hussite connection remembered from the time of Wycliffe and England's own native reformatory ideas. Above all, it was the neutrality of the Hanoverians (but more so the succeeding Saxon Windsors) that made them acceptable. It was constitutionality that created a British monarchy and parliament, separate from the mediaeval English and Scottish forms of government which thereupon ceased to exist, having no independent heir to carry on divergences of nationalism. Anne is not the one to make a difference, I repeat once again. Lord Loxley 16:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What does one make of the Mountbatten-Windsor connection to George Oldenburg, with respect to the British monarchy? Lord Loxley 16:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Hanoverian succession was very much what the English parliament wanted, and was rejected by the Scottish parliament - hence the need (from the English point of view) for a union. And when the Hanoverians arrived 7 years later, within months the Scots rebelled under James the Old Pretender, and were to do so again 30 years later under his son. But let it not be forgotten that the Hanoverians were descended from Elizabeth, daughter of James I. George I and II were both undoubtedly German by upbringing, but when we come to George III (grandson of George II) we find that he was born and brought up in England. A family does not remain German if it lives in England for generations, any more than the Stuarts remained Scottish, or the Tudors Welsh. TharkunColl 18:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, Mary II had full rights to the English & Scottish thrones. Once her 'father and half-brother' were banned from the English & Scottish thrones, Mary II was the 'rightful heir' (as James II/VII's eldest daughter). As for Queen Anne (who would've succeeded her sister, had William III/II not been made co-monarch with Mary II); she was 'indeed' the first British monarch. Loxely, are you claiming 'Great Britain' had no monarch from 1707-1714 & Queen Anne had no country to reign over from 1707-1714? Please clarify. GoodDay 19:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * James I & VI was the first "British" monarch, because he reigned over both England and Scotland. The word "British" was invented long before 1707. And with regard to Queen Anne, no one in 1707 regarded themselves as founding, or living in, a new "country". That's not how it worked at all. TharkunColl 23:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, we'd have to count Mary, Queen of Scots with her royal consorts Francis and Henry as the first British monarchs. They were the first to claim all the titles and even minted it during her reign, which by the way, was recognised by English Catholics if not English Protestants.  But the real distinction is that they claimed to be queen and kings of both England and Scots, unlike James, who claimed to be king of Great Britain.  Lord Loxley 00:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "English Catholics" just don't cut it, I'm afraid. They did not represent the state. One can claim any title one likes - just like the English monarchs claimed to be kings of France, which had no reality whatsoever. TharkunColl 00:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Perfectly understood, just as Henry VIII claimed the title King of Ireland, but this was not accepted until Philip II of Spain was formally recognised as sovereign ruler of Ireland--in conjunction with Mary of course. The point I made was rather to demonstrate the actual transition point between two separate monarchies and the unified British one, which is confused on Wikipedia with the 1603/4-1707 disparity between British monarchical union and parliamentary union.  The only time there was dual rule--if any, was during the reign of Mary Stuart.  Lord Loxley 00:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? Henry VIII had a viceroy in Dublin, and so forth. The English didn't have de facto control of all of Ireland until the end of Elizabeth's reign.  I'm not sure what special claim Mary's reign holds in this respect. Also, most English Catholics who didn't want to get hanged accepted Elizabeth as their queen. john k 13:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The simple fact remains that England's rulers made claims of other nations, even if they properly belonged to others. This was in reply to the rebuff of Mary Stuart's claim to the English and Irish territories, in conjunction with her own rule of Scots and her husband's rule of France.  In fact, the English claim to France was somehow not a problem at that time, since Mary was married to the King of France.  Yes, you are right about Catholic fears of Protestant absolutism in "Good Queen Bess", but that is mostly Englishmen south of the Trent.  Lord Loxley 20:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Hanoverians from 1714 to 1760 were hardly politically neutral at all. They were, more or less, partisan Whigs, to such an extent that the old Tory party crumbled into dust.  Beyond that, the reason William became king was because he was a forceful personality who demanded it, while George of Denmark was not one, and had no interest in political power.  Queen Anne was very much her own monarch, and of course she bucked the Whigs  (and Marlborough and Godolphin) and installed a Tory ministry late in her reign.  There is basically no analogy between William and Mary, on the one hand, and Anne and George, on the other.  William ruled in his and his wife's name, and then in his own.  George did not rule at all - he was a total political cipher.  Beyond that, I'm just going to say that your understanding of British history is idiosyncratic and bizarre, and I have absolutely no idea what you're advocating here.  by "English monarchs" (a form of title which, I admit, I dislike), we mean "monarchs of England" not "ethnically English monarchs").  William the Conqueror and Henry II and James I were, of course, not Englishmen.  But they were English monarchs, because they ruled over England.  That is the only  thing the title is meant to convey.  john k 19:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a Salic Law bias, with the belief that the husband is always representing the political side of marriage, regardless of power. Lord Loxley 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? What does your bizarre belief, which you admit is entirely divorced from actual political realities (Anne was obviously the one with both formal and real power during her reign), have to do with the Salic Law, which is a succession law used in certain countries (but never in England) which forbids succession through and to females?  And what on earth does it even mean "that the husband is always representing the political side of marriage"?  I can't even begin to parse that.  Male consorts of female monarchs have widely varying levels of power, both de jure and de facto.  Why should a "Salic Law bias" cause to ignore this reality and simply declare the man the true ruler? john k 13:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You think that you are the one who always has his head wrapped around things just right and that everyone else needs to learn from you. The obvious atmosphere of the times in which they lived, provided for the political focus to surround the male's heritage.  You cannot be so oblivious to the fact that if William III or Prince George had any heirs, things would have turned out different?  The British Isles would have become dependencies of the Dutch and Danish, as usual with foreign marriages by an heiress.  Nobles have always feared the change in establishment upon an heiress being wed to some foreign power, whether he be a count of Anjou, a king of Spain, or the king of France throwing people (like John Knox in only one type of instance) into a frenzy.  Let your "historical expertise" explain why feminism happened in the 20th century and not the 17th/18th or much earlier, to make your statement stand the test of time.  It always seems that most of the minds ready to dictate the truth, have no open mind to assimilate the knowledge they purport to bear.  Lord Loxley 20:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * WHAT? If William III & Mary II would've had issue -England & Scotland would've lost their independances to the Netherlands OR Great Britain would've lost theirs to Denmark, if Anne & George had issue? GoodDay 20:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The biggest difference in this case, is that Parliament had engineered the foreign marriages, in hopes that they could control it. They could not control the overwhelming inheritance of James VI of Scots, simply because they were bumbling buffoons at the time who couldn't see what might happen in not listening to Henry VIII's demand that Margaret Tudor's heirs be barred from succession.  They thought the Scots would make a war to press the claims of Mary Stuart, if they had decided to put the heirs of Lady Jane Grey on the Throne.  This was an obvious faux pas that led to the Civil War, "Glorious Revolution" and Jacobitism.  Parliament was determined and actually powerful enough to enforce their terms in the age of Mary and Anne, but in most earlier eras, had no control over that sort of thing.  It was experience in the Commonwealth and Protectorate that made them bold, so one could say that there was no fear of the Dutch or Danish getting too big for their britches.  They were obviously, less powerful nations anyways.  But still, the fact remains is that it was universal custom throughout Europe for the man's interests to dominate, especially if there was an heir.  After all, did Britain not get into Hanoverian wars?  Lord Loxley 20:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that why Spanish monarchs numbered themselve after Isabella's line (Castile), and not Ferdinand's line (Aragon)? GoodDay 20:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you not stop this obdurate flippancy, that has no connection to the discussion? Castile was the larger and more important kingdom, like England vis a vis Scotland, or France vis a vis England.  Wikipedia is a free project, but I wish you would remove your obstructive self from this process and find another subject.  I and TharkunColl have fought several times, but everybody can notice how I would rather have him stay--I admit it.  But you, you don't belong here at all because you don't know what you're talking about.  Lord Loxley 20:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland became the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707. Those aren't my views, those are facts. PS- If you can't restrain your emotions, perhaps we should discontinue this discussion. GoodDay 20:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland became the Parliament of Great Britain in 1707. The Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland became the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1604.  Those aren't my views, those are facts.  PS- If you can't restrain your ignorance, perhaps you should go read some books, then come back with some background knowledge to contribute effectively to the discussion.  Lord Loxley 20:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, the Kingdoms were united (in 1707). Seeing as you're becoming increasingly combative & uncivil, I'll depart this discussion. Feel free to continue as you wish on the talk page. GoodDay 20:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Article I of the Act of Union:
 * That the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the First day of May which shall be in the year One thousand seven hundred and seven and for ever after be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain
 * So, two kingdoms, England and Scotland. Your claim doesn't stand up.  At the very least, could you provide a source for these claims you're making? john k 00:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As to James's succession, that had nothing to do with parliament. The basic issues were that there were no other plausible claimants, and that Elizabeth's advisors wanted James to be king.  Who was Mary Tudor (the Elder)'s heir was, in 1603, entirely unclear because of Elizabeth's lack of recognition of Catherine Grey's marriage to the Earl of Hertford, but neither candidate - Lord Beauchamp and Lady Anne Stanley - had any particular political support.  James was the obvious candidate, and a protestant, and he had the most support.   Fear of Scottish  invasion played practically no role in the affair.   I'm not sure what any of this demonstrates, or how a Stuart succession leads inevitably to the Civil War - it strikes me that Charles's blunders played a much greater role in that disaster.  As to Hanover, Britain did indeed get into Hanoverian wars, which was quite unpopular.  And, no doubt, they got into Dutch wars, too (sort of), during  William's reign.  Its relationship to Hanoverian wars, though, was not always completely transparent.  Hanover was involved in the Great Northern War, for instance, but this never led to direct British involvement in that war.  Hanover also, I believe, supported the Emperor in the  War of the Polish Succession, while Britain maintained neutrality (although I'm less sure of that), and Hanover was certainly directly involved in the War of the Austrian Succession  before Britain was.  BTW, do you claim that Hanover was part of Britain after 1714?  If not, how is the personal union between Britain and Hanover to be distinguished from that between England and Scotland? john k 00:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any idea what you're talking about? If William and Mary had had children, it is entirely uncertain whether or not said child would have been chosen as Stadholder in the United Provinces, which were a republic.  He would obviously have inherited William's hereditary lands (Breda, some portion of the Nassau states, and so forth), but that's all.  Even without English entanglements, William's cousin Johan Willem Friso wasn't chosen as Stadholder of most of the Provinces, and the fact that appointing a king of England as Stadtholder would have inevitably led to English domination of the Netherlands (and not vice versa) would have almost certainly made them behave similarly with a son of William.  As for Prince George, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.  Prince George was not the heir to the throne of Denmark, nor would his line have inherited it until, I believe, 1863 (at which point all male-line descendants of George's older brother Christian V became extinct), by which point they would surely have been entirely anglicized, and any union of the crowns at that point would have implied British domination of Denmark, and not vice versa.  john k 00:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Old English bynames
What's the evidence for Alfred being "Ælfred se Greata" and Edward the Elder being "Eadweard se Ealdre"? The intro to the Penguin Asser says Alfred became "the Great" in the early modern period. Sean Miller writes that Edward became "the Elder" to distinguish him from Edward "the Martyr", but the Vita S. Æthelwoldi is surely written in Latin. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was very much in two minds about including those particular examples. TharkunColl 10:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We should most likely remove them, then? john k 16:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I already have. TharkunColl 17:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Visual list at the beginning or at the end?
This article is a list, but a list can take many forms. A succession of 5-column tables and a timeline are just different embodiments of a list. Both complement each other. I believe the timeline, by providing an attractive (I think), high-level, high-density summary, makes for a better intro. How do we know if the timeline "pulls people off" or draws them in (as I believe)? How do we settle whether or not it should appear at the beginning? I think it important enough to not let it slide without better reason. Thanks! :) --elzr 22:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The end is far more sensible, if we need it at all, in the same way that many articles have a genealogy at the end - which is basically what it is. It's not actually a list. TharkunColl 22:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking of genealogy, could someone fix the mistakes at British monarchs' family tree? I don't know how. GoodDay 22:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you point out the mistakes? TharkunColl 22:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Listed the ones I've found here. GoodDay 22:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The only thing I can suggest is downloading the image, and altering it with something like Microsoft Paint. TharkunColl 11:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, that's something over my head. Oh well, at least I've gotten someone to notice, those mistakes. GoodDay 19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But it is a list. Actually. Just as much as the current succession of 5-column tables is a list. It just so happens to be an image. But besides not all family articles having the family tree at the end (see Relatives of Harry Potter), this graph is something rather unique, it's a list that is also a timeline that is also a family tree of sorts. Above all, it is an abstract of a very long article and I find the natural place for an abstract to be the beginning. --elzr 23:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

dates for Ethelwulf
I'm not sure why 855 is given as the date of the end of his reign. 855 is the year he went on pilgrimage to Rome. However, his son did not claim the throne, so far as I can tell, until the next year, 856. Even at that point, Ethelwulf continued to be king of Essex, Sussex, and Kent until his death in 858. john k 13:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, in all the encyclopedias that I've seen Ethelwulf's reign was 839-58 & Ethelbald's 858-60. Also, why is Sweyn listed? Don't recall him being King of England. GoodDay 14:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Fryde and Powicke have him on their lists, and so does Keynes. On the other hand, Miller's list on anglo-saxons.net doesn't include him, and Britannica seems to list Canute as the first Danish king of the English. Unlike Louis the Lion, there seems to be a good case for including Sweyn Forkbeard, albeit with some sort of caveat. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

King/Queen of Great Britain
Once again, James I/VI wasn't legitimately King of Great Britain, he was King of England, Scotland and Ireland. Also his 'self-styled title' was not adopted by Charles I, Charles II, James II/VII, Mary II, William III/II and Anne (from 1702-07). GoodDay 14:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a reference to back these facts. Afterall, James also styled himself a 'god on earth' (was he that aswell?). GoodDay 15:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Britain at the time had undergone the same transformation as Spain had, due to the marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabel of Castile. There was nothing strange about that convention at all, which had gone on for hundreds of years and originated in Merovingian inheritance practices, so you are making a fuss. Parliaments had no right or power at the time to deny the king anything, which made them furious for handing him the crown in the first place. The only way they could force the king's hand, was by killing him. That's exactly what happened to his son Charles, for continuing with these notions that offended them. You really ought to go to history classes, because you are looking at this from a parliamentary point of view that scarcely existed in 1603/4. Also, have you checked the mint of the reigns for those other monarchs? You constantly split hairs where there are none to do so. I am rather pleased that it is not TharkunColl who is the most dense editor here, because he has all the common sense and wisdom you lack. Sorry if it seems confrontational, it's just I get sick and tired of your shallow attitude that has no grasp on the depth of anything related to this topic. Lord Loxley 20:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I could responsed to that dense comment, but I won't (this is about the article, not us). Fact#1: the Parliaments were against the title, Fact#2: The Kingdom of Great Britain only came into existance in 1707, and Fact#3: It's not gonna 'end the world', mentioning the Parliaments dissapproval. GoodDay 20:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A Kingdom of Spain did not exist until the 18th century. Read John Elliott, please. And what have Merovingian inheritance practices to do with England, anyway?  The fact that Merovingian inheritance practices involved dividing up kingdoms among the sons of the ruler would suggest that it has absolutely no relation to inheritance practices pretty much anywhere in Europe by 1603, except maybe some of the German principalities, which were often split up and recombined.  Parliament of course had many rights and powers, else why would they exist?  In particular, they had the power to raise extraordinary taxes.  Charles was able to rule without parliament for 11 years because he maintained the peace.  As soon as he needed to fight a war (due to his loss of control in his other kingdom, Scotland), he had to bring them back, and it took him some time before he realized that he could fight them.  England and Scotland were obviously in a personal union after 1603, but they were still in all other respects separate monarchies.  Perhaps you ought to read about the way that early modern states were formed, and particularly the idea of composite monarchy - John Elliott again.  The two kingdoms of England and  Scotland had nothing in common besides the person of the ruler.  This was not unusual in early modern Europe - it was the norm.  The Spanish monarchs ruled separately over Castile, Portugal, Navarre, the three separate realms of the crown of Aragon (Aragon, Valencia, and Catalonia), Sardinia, Sicily, Naples, the Duchy of Milan, the Free County of Burgundy, and the various territories making up the Spanish Netherlands.  These did not together comprise a "kingdom of Spain," and there's no legitimacy in taking the portions of that which make up the modern Kingdom of Spain (Castile, Navarre, Aragon, Valencia, Catalonia) and declaring them to be "Spain" after 1479.  The Austrian Habsburgs a lso ruled separately as Holy Roman Emperors, King of Hungary, King of Bohemia, Archduke of Austria, Duke of Silesia, Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola, Margrave of Moravia, Margrave of Lusatia, Princely Count of Tyrol, etc. etc.  Once again, this did not make all those places into a single country called "Austria" - in fact, it's arguable that a single country called "Austria" didn't exist until 1918.  The Kings of Denmark were also Kings of Norway; before 1569 the Kings of Poland were Grand Dukes of Lithuania.  These were all separate roles (although Denmark and Norway is a bit more complicated).  At any rate, the idea that it is others who have a shallow view of this is absurd - you clearly have no familiarity with the historiography of either early modern Britain or the early modern state more broadly. john k 00:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a Parliamentary (Whig history) view of events. The Parliaments united in 1707 and Great Britain was reinvented as a Constitutional monarchy. The fact still remains, is that the absolute monarchy of Britain had already existed since 1603/4. You cannot deny the roots of the Civil War, or the progression of Parliamentary powers to dictate 1707 anyways. History happened how it happened. There were two stages of unification; the first began with a royal kingdom of Great Britain; the second with a parliamentary kingdom of Great Britain. The Union of the Crowns means that the kingdoms (notice the words "king" and "dom-ain") were already united in 1603/4. (You have failed to address the unification process of Spain, which did not rely on Parliament) Parliament simply united the governmental machinery that made the country function as one in 1707, since the monarchs failed to do so on their own, regardless of (obviously flawed) views on royal supremacy. If I could make a time machine, I'd give it to you for free. Reading history doesn't seem to work for you. Lord Loxley 20:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You and others (whomever they are) are going to have to accept the facts- the Kingdom of Great Britain did not come into existance until 1707. James I/VI, Charles I, Charles II, James II/VII, Mary II, William III/II an Anne (1702-07) were concurrently monarch of England and Ireland & monarch of Scotland. It's not my fault things were/are that way; Please stop pushing this 1604 unification of the Kingdoms PoV. GoodDay 20:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would be wrong to say outright that there was no Kingdom of Great Britain when there was a King of Great Britain simply because the parliaments were not united. However I do believe that to use the term is stretching the meaning of 'kingdom' to the edge of what is acceptable regardless of whether it is literally and technically correct. I certainly don't think we'd be having this debate had James's two realms not been right next to each other...--Breadandcheese 18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Britain was not an absolute monarchy before 1688, or before 1640, or before 1603, or before whatever date you want to give. It was a traditional monarchy of the sort that had arisen in the Middle Ages,  and it featured a fairly strong survival (in the form of parliament) of medieval institutions which limited the powers of the king.  Some other European  states came much closer to eliminating such institutions by the end of the 16th century - France and Castile, notably - but they all had them, and the struggle between monarchs and countervailing institutions was important throughout Europe.  The idea of "absolute monarchy" was one that arose in the course of the 17th century, and particularly refers to the sort of state established by Louis XIV in France in the second half of the century - one where all political power was vested in the monarch.  But even in France this was dubious, given the power of the Parlements.  England, on the other hand, never had an absolute monarchy.  The closest it came was in the 11 years of Charles I's personal rule, and, again, this could only work because of internal and external peace.  As soon as Scottish war required Charles to raise money, he had to call on parliament, and the game was up.  Your view of history is simplistic and incorrect. john k 00:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop pushing the contrarian, Parliamentary revisionism that had no validity in 1604. They did not get what they wanted until 1707, after which they felt pertinent to redefine earlier reigns, like how Henry VII, after slaying Richard III, dated his reign to the day before the Battle of Bosworth Field in order to deem his opponents traitors. History is always revised by the winners. Be objective. Lord Loxley 20:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but, due to your increasing conbative & uncivil air, I'm departing this discussion (to allow others to respond). Again, let go of this 1604 unification of Kingdoms PoV. GoodDay 21:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is us who are being contrarian and revisionist. Sure. john k 00:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Question - Is there a "Kingdom of the Commonwealth"? Canada, Jamaica and the UK share their monarch, so are they united? Jza84 00:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * They don't share their monarch as such. The Queen of the UK is a separate office from Queen of Canada in theory; the fact that it is held by the same person and has the same rules of succession is irrelevant to that fact. --Breadandcheese 18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In answer to the question, yes James did style himself King of Great Britain, as he was perfectly entitled to do. The fact remains however that it was not his primary legal title. It should be used sparingly on Wikipedia. --Breadandcheese 18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Jza84, was just asking Lord Loxley a 'rhetorical question' (explaining to him, when England & Scotland were united as Great Britain). GoodDay 18:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Early dates
Æthelberht died in 865: see the refs/comments at Ethelbert of Wessex and Ethelred of Wessex. Regarding Athelstan, the 924 date would be better as "924 or 925". Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought it was 866; I suppose alot of these 'Wessex' dates aren't overly accurate (due to poor records). GoodDay 14:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Burke's Peerage & Gentry gives 866. And be sure to change all dates, including his age, if you find a better reference. TharkunColl 18:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The sources for 865 include Barbara Yorke's Kings and Kingship in Early Anglo-Saxon England, Simon Keynes's king lists in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, Ann Williams's Kingship and Government in Pre-Conquest England, Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England (five years after 860), and Kirby's The Earliest English Kings. As for birth dates, so far as I am aware, the only one of Æthelwulf's sons whose birth year is known, rather than guesstimated, is Alfred, and Æthelwulf's age at death is very much open to question. Kirby certainly devotes some time offering counter-arguments to the idea that Æthelwulf was as old as this list suggests. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. I've removed the contradiction from the list. I've also noticed (and this is certainly not just now, either), that England, during its first century or so as a unified kingdom, was so very often in the hands of teenagers or people in their 20s. Did the West Saxons have some sort of inherited malaise? Why did they all die so young? The only ones that didn't, Ethelred and Edward the Confessor, were really bad. TharkunColl 23:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've always seen 866 for Ethelbert. john k 15:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have references; I just went by user-Angus McLellan's examples. GoodDay 18:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved talk down here
The process of British unification began between Edward IV and the Douglas clan, who were pro-English (rather than French, apart from the Duc de Touraine) and in refuge from the Stewarts. The Tudors made unification an active affair and several attempts were made to intermarry, which resulted in James, the child of Henry and Mary Stuart. Henry and Mary (like Lady Jane Grey) made an official claim too soon to the English Crown, but their son was more successful. James was the result of centuries' long negotiations and "wooing"--an opportunity that made it rational to bypass Henry VIII's exclusion of Margaret's line, since all the work would have gone to waste. But while the monarchy and their royal dominion was outwardly united (flag, royal style, coat of arms, foreign policy) under their powers of blood, the machinery of government and the biases of the people did not permit a perfect union. To be perfectly clear, neither the accession of James, nor the union of parliaments was good enough to unite the British people. The Scots resisted union, whether Catholic or Protestant, for about one more century of Jacobitism and the Gordon Riots. Even then there was massive unrest, because half of the population had been evicted from their homes and fled overseas in both the Highland and Lowland Clearances. I don't even need to address how volatile "union" was/is with the Irish, but it has been certainly much more of a sham. If there was dual/joint rule between two clearly separate British Isles nations, then surely the "wild, barbarous Irish" would count as separate from the English (and definitely the Scots, rendering "Celtic" meaningless) throughout their long domination of the Gaelic country. Even nowadays, Labour has found a way to keep the people divided. But the real problem I find in this, is that the Spain-related articles do not typically cultivate the balkanist depictions of Spain. Activists have sometimes tried to co-opt those articles for Basque or Catalan separatisms, but are usually caught and stopped. When Spain's armies and galleons were abroad in the time of Columbus, did people say they were Castilian, Leonese, or Aragonese, rather than simply Spanish? If you want to keep up with this uniqueness fallacy, then you will have to explain how England is one nation, rather than Sussex, Kent, Wessex, Northumbria, East Anglia, Mercia and Essex. What constitutionality brought them together? What formal connections were made? Bah, you can't explain away. "National feeling of patriotism" whether against the Danes and Normans is simply not enough, when going by your nitpicking. Which way is it? James's declaration was hardly democratic, but it also does not mean that one foists post-Cromwellian ideas onto the affair in order to get a more reasonable perception of how unity was achieved. I detest your apparent lack of consideration for democracy when it comes to the other home nations. Parliament may mean everything to you, but it meant nothing to half the Scottish population between the beheading of Charles I and the '45, thus nullifying the effects of 1707 in their minds. How do you get off, being so biased against hearing out their or the Irish sides? You use establishmentary propaganda as fact, which brought "democracy" to mercantile aristrocrats and not the common people--low indeed. Lord Loxley 05:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

To sum it up: you believe that Britain was united only when traitorous and freewheeling, English oligarchical merchants got the upper hand (backstabbing the British people--including the colonists--after the Anglo-Dutch Wars by outsourcing the monarchy to the Dutch in the "Glorious Revolution"), not when the Scots were in a relatively strong position during the reigns of James and Charles. You were probably spoonfed this ideology from all the nationalist literature, spawned by the Whigs who made "union" a redundant concept in British government--two layers of a ruling class known as "king in parliament", rather than a single tier of power and aristocrats who knew their place as ass-kissers of the king. You salute the closures too, I suppose. It's all from the same source. I am the most objective editor in this discussion, because you cannot seem to escape systemic, establishmentary bias. Lord Loxley 06:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

List of British monarchs
I've begun a new article, which requires citations and expansion. It deals with the British monarchs, starting (of course) with Queen Anne. If anyone can add to the article, please do. GoodDay 19:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Added 'new article' to See also section. Also, wiki-linked British monarchs title section, to further encourage editors to move post-1707 monarchs info to new article. GoodDay 23:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Post-1707 monarchs info, has been properly moved to List of British monarchs, by TharkunColl. Thanks Tharky. GoodDay 23:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Anne
In the edit summary ThurkunColl compares Egbert with Anne but it is not an exact comparison. Egbert still remained king of Wessex but in 1707, England ceased to be a sovereign state and so she couldn't be Queen of England after that date. She was Queen of Ireland until 1714, though. Bill Reid | Talk 08:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're correct, Anne ceased to be Queen of England on 1 May 1707. GoodDay 14:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal reign VS her English reign & British reign
In order to avoid a possible 'edit war', I've decided to bring up the core of confusion here, that confusion? Anne personal reign (1702-14). Should we omit her personal reign, and shown only her English reign (1702-07), then her British reign (1707-14)? It's a tricky thing. Anyone, have any solutions? GoodDay 14:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's clear enough for me, Anne was simultaneously queen of England and Scotland up to I suppose, midnight 30 April 1707 when when she became queen of Great Britain. So, in this list her reign as queen of England ends in 1707. Bill Reid | Talk 15:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should use the example at List of monarchs of Scotland. Leave out Anne's personal reign, simply mention 1702-07 her English reign (pointing out she was also concurrently monarch of Scotland & Ireland). Then underneath that, point out her British reign (1707-14). GoodDay 16:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, see nothing wrong in that but remove sentence "From this time on the titles King of England and Queen of England are technically incorrect (though still in wide usage)." Bill Reid | Talk 16:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously, King/Queen of England titles no longer exist - however the British monarch has been (though erroneously) often called English monarch. If you wish to remove it though, I won't dispute. GoodDay 16:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Visual List
We've got to get rid of that Visual List, it belongs at List of monarchs in the British Isles, not here. GoodDay 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gotten rid of it. GoodDay 13:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sweyn Forkbeard
If Sweyn was included in the list of kings in, for example, the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, would that be convincing? How about the Royal Historical Society's Handbook of British Chronology? What if he was included in one but not the other? Or in neither? Or in both? Curiously, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Convincing of what?  Majorly  (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As a better-than-a-random-geocities-website reference for his dates as king of England. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many references online to a Christmas Day accession. I don't know why it's not on the Archontology site, but no source is perfect I suppose. TharkunColl 17:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There may be, but I checked the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England's king lists, its articles on "Æthelred the Unready" and "Swein Forkbeard", the Handbook of British Chronology, Stafford's Kingship and Unity, and Higham's Death of Anglo-Saxon England: none of these say Christmas. The Handbook says "autumn", the Encyclopedia says 1013. And the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle doesn't say either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * TharkunColl added a link to Englishmonarchs.co.uk - now I don't know how reliable that site is, but they must have got that reference from *somewhere*. Perhaps the site owner could be emailed and asked?  Majorly  (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK I emailed the site owner - whether she'll reply is another matter (the site was last updated in 2005 as far as I can tell).  Majorly  (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * She replied! :) A book called "'A History of the Anglo-Saxons' by Sir Francis Palgrave" is the source apparently.  Majorly  (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The works of Francis Palgrave not the cutting edge of scholarship. I'm not quite sure why Google books only has the French edition, but the fine people at the Internet Archive have the 1850 edition. Even so, Palgrave does not explicitly say when S. became king (pp. 300-301). Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He was an English historian... we can't really get much better than that.  Majorly  (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

English monarchs
The website referenced above, and countless others, list English monarchs down to the present. I am not particularly happy with cutting this list off at 1707, because it gives a wholly misleading impression of what happened in that year. Everything about the "state" was exactly the same as existed immediately prior to that point in England. No one in England thinks that they live in a different country to the one that existed before 1707. What happened in that year was an annexation, pure and simple. Why is there a massive movement in Scotland for independence, if this were not so? But in any case, since Wikpedia is built on secondary sources, we really should list all the monarchs - right down to the present day. TharkunColl 23:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Claims that everyone knows, and anonymous self-published websites, are not really in line with Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. And it isn't secondary sources, it's reliable sources. Few websites are reliable sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There's the Guinness Book of Kings, Rulers and Statesmen. TharkunColl 23:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, Tharky - The Kingdoms of England and Scotland unified in 1707, into the Kingdom of Great Britain (later unified with Kingdom of Ireland in 1801, becoming the UK etc). As a result, the English monarchy & the Scottish monarchy unified into the British monarchy, in otherwords English monarchs end in 1707. GoodDay 16:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PS- There's English who want to break away from the UK, aswell. What's your point, Tharky? GoodDay 16:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that this is a misleading and false way of looking at what happened because the English organs of government continued exactly as before, whereas the Scottish ones were abolished (even to the extent that the Westminster parliament was still subject to the triennial act from its previous election). Even the historian David Starky, in his TV series and books on the monarchy, acknowledges this. The vast majority of secondary sources also list them in this way, and Wikipedia is built on secondary sources. There may be English who want to dissolve the union, but they are a tiny, tiny group, and do not see it in terms of gaining "independence", rather they see it as jettisoning unproductive areas that are a drain on resources. In Scotland, however, independence is a massive movement, and its party is the largest in their parliament. TharkunColl 17:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * England did not take over Scotland (wasn't it a Scottish monarch who assumed the English throne, in 1603?) . They were united, let's respect that fact. If we add British monarchs to this list, we add it to the Scottish list, there's no way around it. GoodDay 17:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But that's precisely what did happen. They wrapped it up as a merger to appease the Scots, but in reality it was England that forced the issue. And they did so in order to get rid of the Stuart dynasty and replace it with one of their own choosing. The Scottish state was abolished, there is no need to add them to its list. For the English state, however, it was business as usual. To continue with the corporate analogy, it was not a merger of equals, but a hostile takeover by a massive corporation of a very small and bankrupt one. TharkunColl 20:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought we settled this months ago, the creation of the article List of British monarchs was the result. The English monarchy ended in 1707, along with the Scottish monarchy. GoodDay 20:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The English monarchy did not "end" in 1707. It merely became the British monarchy (a term which it had used for the past hundred years). Simply because a state expands and incorporates new territory, does that make it a different state? Canada has expanded many times since 1867 for example. TharkunColl 20:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh no! here we go again - I could continue to argue with you, but it's only fair we let others join in the discussion. I'm gonna get somebody from WikiProject United Kingdom to helpu us. GoodDay 20:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The accurate legal position is NOT that th Kingdom of England expanded and changed its name. It is rather that the Kingdom of England was subsumed into the new Kingdom of Great Britian. Both the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist as legal entities in 1707. I quote from the English Parliament's enagling legislation: "THAT the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the first Day of May which shall be in the Year one thousand seven hundred and seven, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain..." (5 ANN., CAP. VIII) --Docg 09:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

State v. country
The above issue raises another one - what is the list actually of? Is it of the geographical country called England, or is it of the state? If it's the latter, then the English state is merely a continuation of the West Saxon state, which was founded by Cerdic of Wessex in 519. If it's a list of leaders of a specific state, then we should add the West Saxon kings to the beginning. The state in question has had the following names - Wessex, England, Great Britain, and United Kingdom (2 versions), and has expanded by annexation, but it is the same state, with a continuity of administration and organisation. TharkunColl 20:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I considered it being about the 'English' monarchy itself. By suggesting the British monarchy is a successor of the defunct English monarchy only, may lead to heated disputes and present a slap in the face to the defunct Scottish monarchy. GoodDay 21:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The English monarchy is not defunct - that is a misunderstanding of history and actually quite insulting. The current monarchs even number themselves after the English ones (yes, I know the Queen changed the rules. Do you ever imagine there will be another King James?). All the offices of state are English ones, the parliament has all the same traditions, etc. It is not a "slap in the face" to Scotland to suggest that its state was abolished, it is merely a fact - and appeals to emotion should have no place here. But it is a slap in the face to the English to suggest that their state was abolished (and this calumny is presumably quite pleasing to some). But in any case it doesn't matter, because what you are suggesting is original research. Most sources list the monarchs to the present day (e.g. David Starkey's Monarchy), and that's what we must rely on. TharkunColl 23:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also asked for help from the England & Scotland WikiProjects. GoodDay 23:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why start a "List of English monarchs" with some bloke with a Welsh name, who, if he ever existed, like as not never set foot in Wessex? You might as well begin with Brutus of Troy. Then you can use Geoffrey of Monmouth as a reference. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah hah, I new angle. Is the beginning of this article, accurate? Very interesting. GoodDay 23:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are certainly rulers who existed (some mentioned by Geoffrey), who ruled what later became England - such as Carausius. If our list is of those who ruled the geographical territory, why shouldn't these be included? Conversely, if we're talking about the state, then why exlude the West Saxon kings before Egbert? TharkunColl 00:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The pre-Egbert monarchs are interesting, but admitedly I'm unfamiliar with them. I'll let others deal with the beginings of this article. Now, are we gonna leave this article end at 1707 (like the Scottish version)?, I hope we do. GoodDay 20:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The official website of the British monarchy starts the British monarchs at 1603. Can we possibly get a better source than that? TharkunColl 23:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * However, from 1603 to 1707 - those monarchs were concurrently monarchs of England and Scotland. If James VI/I to Anne (pre-1707) are considered British monarchs, then those bio articles must also be changed (example: Charles I of England becomes Charles I of Great Britain. GoodDay 00:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to rename those articles. As you say, those monarchs were of England and Scotland - which makes them British. The royal website lists them as British. They called themselves British. They used the Union Jack as their flag. The Union of the Crowns in 1603 was a much more significant change than the incorporation of a few Scottish MPs into parliament in 1707. TharkunColl 08:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion is old and was settled months ago (thus the reason for creating List of British monarchs), why take apart what we've put together? As for Charles I? if anything it should be Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland; certainly not Charles I of Great Britain. Again, this is an old dispute, we should leave the articles as they currently are. GoodDay 18:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The articles as they stand give a misleading impression. Either we have the whole list in one article, or we separate the articles at 1603 (that would also have the incidental advantage of making both articles more balanced in terms of length). That's what the royal website does, and that's just about as official as it's possible to get. Charles I was most assuredly King of Great Britain - he even used that very title. The fact that the parliaments weren't merged until 1707 is much less important than the fact that Great Britain had a unified executive from 1603 onwards. TharkunColl 19:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I must disagree with you. From 1603 to 1707, James VI/I to Anne (pre-1707) were monarch of three seperate Kingdoms (England, Scotland and Ireland). The Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707 not 1603. GoodDay 19:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We must be very careful not to apply the modern concept of "statehood" to polities that existed before modern political theory was devised. The events of 1707 were simply a recognition of what had occured a hundred years earlier, a tidying up of loose ends as it were. TharkunColl 19:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First things first, request that those related Stuart monarchs have their bio articles changed (example xxx of England to xxx of Great Britain) then, seek changes here. If you'd like I'll bring it up at those articles. My guess is Great Britain will be rejected (but you never know). GoodDay 19:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just commenting here breifly that I am in agreement with User:GoodDay. The article works very well at the moment. TharkunColl, you're making alot of sweeping statements; "The events of 1707 were simply a recognition of what had occured a hundred years earlier" - that's a point of view. "geographical country of England" - what exactly is that? Can you support your conjecture with citation?


 * Furthermore, I believe this article should be renamed to List of monarchs of England. "Englishness" is open to interpretation; James I could be described, for example, as a Scottish king of England. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * List of monarchs of England? Sure, I'll go with that, matches better with it's Scottish cousin article List of monarchs of Scotland. GoodDay 20:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, what do we rename List of British monarchs to? Or do we split it up into three different lists? Let it be remembered that when we embarked on these changes, it was part of the process that the Scottish list should also be changed, to bring all three lists into agreement. Yet this has not happened. TharkunColl 00:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever you guys decide, I'll accept. GoodDay 18:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Propose we move title to List of monarchs of England
Following Jza84's recommendation (above), we should 'move' this article title. GoodDay 20:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We've a problem (as Tharky pointed out above). If we change this articles name? What then do we do with List of British monarchs. Plus if we keep this article name, then what about List of monarchs of Scotland? Consistancy, calls for one solution or the other. What's to be done? GoodDay 18:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything particularly bad about List of monarchs of Great Britain and the United Kingdom? It's long, yes, but presumably there should be endless shorter redirects. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll accept any consistancy solution, the article titles can go either way. GoodDay 18:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

From the horse's mouth
The British monarchy website lists English monarchs to 1603, Scottish monarchs to 1603, and British monarchs since 1603. See here. Failing the discovery of any source more authoritative than that, I shall change the lists anon. Any who disagree must please bear in mind that Wikipedia is built on secondary sources, and is not a place for original research. I won't bother changing the Scottish list however, since I'm not Scottish. TharkunColl 00:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Get the 1603 to 1707 monarchs biographies changed to xxx of Great Britain first, then, seek addition of British monarchs here. Why are you reluctant to do that, Tharky? GoodDay 18:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly concerned with the names of those articles, because currently I'm working on making this list accurate and consistent. It's not that I don't understand the arguments for 1707, it's just that I feel 1603 represents a much more important change. For the first time, Great Britain had a unified executive - from that date onwards and to the present day. And I must once again stress that this is the view taken by the official royal website. TharkunColl 19:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The British monarchy came into being in 1707. This article already reflects that. Furthermore, those other articles are directly related to this one, you can't recommend changes here & not recommend them there. GoodDay 19:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Repeatedly stating something over and over again does not make it true. The British monarchy did not come into being in 1707. But even if you think it did, you are contradicted by the British monarchy itself, on its own website. Please try and find a source to back up your assertion before making it again. What happened in 1707 was primarily a parliamentary union. If this was a list of parliaments (see List of Parliaments of England), your argument would make a lot of sense. But it isn't, it's a list of monarchs. And telling me that I must also try and change the titles of those other articles seems very much like delaying tactics. I am far more interested in making the contents of this article accurate. TharkunColl 19:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm too lazy to look for sources: If you want to change this article 'go ahead'. When you're done? change Kingdom of Great Britain, Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland, List of monarchs of Scotland, James I of England, Charles I of England, Charles II of England, James II of England, William III of England, Mary II of England and Anne of Great Britain. Since (according to your source) all those articles are also in error. If you choose not to, I'll will propose those changes for you at those articles. PS- when I propose those changes, please add your 'sources' to them (to back those proposals). GoodDay 19:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, start an AfD for List of British monarchs, since changes here will make that article obsolete. GoodDay 19:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well no, not really, since that article has existed as a redirect to the utterly atrocious List of monarchs in the British Isles since 2005. Also I've just noticed that if you spell "british" with a small "b" it takes you straight to the latter article directly, anyway. It was hardly ever an independent article in the first place. TharkunColl 00:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No Afd? very well. Now then, what about the other aritlces? GoodDay 00:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the articles on James I, etc.? Please feel free to propose a name change. It doesn't really bother me - content is far more important. TharkunColl 00:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not just James I (which was months earlier turned down), but also his Stuart successors. GoodDay 00:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, whatever you like. TharkunColl 00:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I'll mention that the proposal is at your request, sinc I'm opposed to making these changes. GoodDay 00:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it is not at my request. I don't care what the articles are called. Your suggestion can only be designed to create antagonism. TharkunColl 00:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're confusing me - You want this article to show that James VI/I to Anne are British monarchs (pluse you want to add George I to Elizabeth II), yet you're reluctant to call for these changes at those other articles (which would require those changes). I'm trying to help, yet I seem to be getting negative feedback, why? GoodDay 00:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it is my opinion that you are being deliberately obstructive. The names of those articles are not at all important, since they already have loads of redirects to them (e.g. James VI of Scotland). It is the content that matters, not the title. But in any case, my interests lie in chronology, mapping, and the like, which is why I edit lists such as this. Biographies, in general, I leave to someone else. TharkunColl 00:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-add George I to Elizabeth II. Describe, James VI/I to Anne (pre-1707) as British monarchs. Though I still disagree with you on these topics. GoodDay 00:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Parliaments created the Kingdom of Great Britain; not James and his Stuart successors. Union of the crowns was not approved by the Parliaments in 1603. GoodDay 00:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are assuming by that statement that the parliaments had more authority than the king, but this was not so. It wasn't until 1688 that parliamentary sovereignty was asserted. In 1603 parliament was subservient to the monarchy, therefore the monarch was the ultimate authority. TharkunColl 01:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've questioned edits at some of those other articles (in hopes of getting clarification there and here), pointing out changes here should be respected and copied there. It's confusing Kingdom of Great Britain says 1707-1801 yet, your 'royal source' would claim 1603-1801. Also, your source's claim that English monarchs continue to the present, contradicts Kingdom of England's dates of existance. GoodDay 01:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, as I said, other Wikipedia articles cannot, in any way, be used as sources - this is specifically barred under Wikipedia rules. They might be completely unreliable. As for my 'royal source', as you term it, it's the official website of the British monarchy. I can't imagine a more authoritative source than that. Can you? (And it states 1603 to the present, by the way, not to 1801.) TharkunColl 01:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm signing out for the night, will discuss more tommorow. In the meantime, since you've got a source (and I don't) you've got every right to make your changes. Goodnight. GoodDay 01:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What your linked source actually says is that the monarchy after 1603 was of the "United Kingdom" not of "Great Britain", which is even more blatently wrong. The explanation for this is that this is just a web-site, with content created by some half-witted researcher. The issues are very clear to everyone; one duff web source, however apparently respectable, is not enough to change the page. There are plenty of other proper printed sources referenced in articles affected by this change that give the correct facts - try those at Union of the Crowns. Johnbod 02:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether it is "wrong" or not is a matter of opinion. The source is unimpeachable - it's the official website of the monarchy. Wikipedia rules dictate that we use this source, and not indulge in original research (which includes making value judgements about the source). TharkunColl 02:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, it's just a website, which you claim outranks all the academic works referenced at Union of the Crowns. That is completely against WP:RS. Whether it is right or wrong is a matter of fact which can be decided from more heavyweight printed sources.  You might also consider, although I don't myself think it likely, that a political point is being made here - it would not be the first time that the monarchy has given an inaccurate description of its own past for various reasons. Johnbod 02:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So what are you arguing for? That the monarchy wasn't united in 1603 in a single person? That is just absurd. This is a list of monarchs, not states. TharkunColl 02:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am arguing for the status quo, that the English and Scottish lists continue until Anne & so on. There are plenty of personal unions in Europe which are not treated as national unions. There is no monarch without a state to be monarch of - the state comes first. Johnbod 02:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said above, it is very important that we do not fall into the trap of projecting modern concepts of "statehood" onto historical polities that existed before current political theories were invented. For an example of this, look at Spain. Technically, Spain was a collection of monarchies in personal union, yet it is not listed as such. Your assertion that there is no monarch without a "state" is pure POV, based on a misunderstanding of historical reality. If there is no monarch without a state, what were the Holy Roman Emperors monarchs of? Or come to that, the French monarchs of the middle ages? TharkunColl 02:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Who is producing the OR now (as in your novel theories on the C17 English constitution a long way above)? I'd don't have time for this. Consensus is clearly against these changes, based solely on a populist website. Please leave well alone. Johnbod 03:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The "populist website" you mention is the official website of the British monarchy. Wikipedia is built on secondary sources, it is not the place to push anachronistic political theories of statehood, etc. Please do not tell me to "leave well alone". TharkunColl 03:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Tharky, I check your source and it is sorta flawed. The United Kingdom only came into being in 1801 (not 1603). It's correct on other parts, your source forbids George I to Elizabeth II being added to this list. Also, if you were to have James I to Willlam III as British monarchs, then you'd have to omit them from this list and move them to List of British monarchs. Johnbod is correct - that royal source is flawed - Plus I've check related articles and consesus there is against your proposals. Sorry Tharky. Oh, by the way, I'm back. GoodDay 12:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well yes, my proposal was indeed to move James I to Anne to the British list, and so make the two lists slightly less unbalanced in length (though that is not the reason for my proposal, merely an added benefit). The royal source may indeed be flawed, but it is against Wikipedia policy to conduct original research. We must rely on sources such as this, and the official royal website beats all others precisely for this reason. Do you know of any source that states that the monarchs from James I to Anne were not British? I think you'll have a hard time finding one, since they actually called themselves British, and they ruled the whole of Great Britain. They used the Union Jack as their flag, and they quartered the arms of England and Scotland in their coats of arms. TharkunColl 13:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the Kingdom of Great Britain existed (1707-1800) NOT (1603-1800). You can't be King/Queen of a country that didn't exist. GoodDay 13:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * PS- you source doensn't say Jame I to William are monarch of Great Britain it's says they're monarchs of the United Kingdom (another mistake). GoodDay 13:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please find a source for your assertion, rather than merely repeating it. I think you have misunderstood the nature of the polities that existed in past centuries. Take the Kalmar Union for example - despite its name it was technically still only a personal union, but it acted as one state. As was Spain. And the Holy Roman Empire was never a country, yet it still had monarchs. Do you happen to have a copy of the King James Bible? If so, take a look at the front page, and see what James I describes himself as. Now that is straight from the horse's mouth! TharkunColl 13:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The source you provided, turned out to be 'unreliable'. Furthermore, until you can prove to us that the Kingdom of Great Britain came into existance in 1603, your argument is pointless. I would suggest you leave the article the way it is. PS- thanks for the discussion. GoodDay 15:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. James by the Grace of God, King...of France... should tell us all we need to know about the sort of claims the monarchy made and makes. Coins are equally doubtful witnesses. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In reply to GoodDay, I'm not saying that a "kingdom" of GB came into existence in 1603, but there most assuredly was a king of GB in 1603. This list is about kings, not kingdoms. And to Angus, yes you're right about France of course - the English kings had claimed it for centuries. But unlike France, GB really was reigned over by James. TharkunColl 15:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it wasn't. James_I_of_England explains what happened, and cites sources for it. James wanted to create Great Britain, but the English parliament said no. So, instead, he issued a proclamation styling himself "King of Great Britain". This is exactly the same meaningless propaganda as the style "King of France". Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We are at cross purposes I'm afraid. James did reign over GB. Not a kingdom of that name, but nevertheless he reigned over GB. In a list called kings of GB or any variant thereof, not to include him seems very strange indeed. These are lists of kings, not kingdoms. TharkunColl 16:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Best not to drag James into the sorry company of pretenders. If you want to add a referenced note here on James's claims, fine. Then draw a line under this. Johnbod 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly, Angus. ThurkanColl, when you in a hole stop digging. A more authoritative understanding is in the Acts(s) of Union themselves and the actual wording of the Scottish Act of Union (which is practically identical to the English one), go to . Articles 1 and 3 refer --Bill Reid | Talk 17:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically No King/Queen of England?
The phrase "...[s]ince that date the title King (or Queen) of England has been technically incorrect, though has remained in wide usage to the present day..." is neither correct or clear. It is not a "technicality" (based on or marked by a strict interpretation) that such a title does not exist as it cannot be construed in any other way to be correct. As a matter of clarity, leaving it as is gives readers the impression that it can be correct in some other interpretation. So I changed it.Gary Joseph (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think RfC or even a vote is necessary yet. The discussion has only involved five so far. We could wait till others have recovered from Xmas hangovers. Now I'm certainly not in favour of naming a monarch after 1707 King/Queen of England. That's just not correct. But it would make sense to have monarchs of England and the UK in one list, with their proper titles. It's commonly done. And in Wikipedia we do love splicing and nuancing things endlessly! Just think of the legion of 'Commonwealth realm' articles!--Gazzster (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Prof. David Starkey on the continuity of the English-British state:
''The crown of England is the oldest surviving political institution in Europe. In Britain itself, the relationship between monarchy and people created the English national identity and shaped Scotland and Wales. Prof. David Starkey, Monarchy''.

I have therefore re-included the post 1707 monarchs in this list, with a suitable reference. TharkunColl (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What does that prove? The Duchy of Normandy is technically still in existence, it doesn't mean it exists in real terms. The crown of England may still exist - but in the sense that it is the driving part of the monarchy of the UK. Nonetheless, the "Kingdom of England" does not exist anymore, and has not existed since 1707, since which time it has been the "United Kingdom of...". Michael Sanders 17:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As is explained fully in the article. TharkunColl (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And apparently a tv series with an agenda (i.e. to prove that the crown of England has had a lasting effect upon the British monarchy) outweighs established political institutions. Michael Sanders 17:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to argue political institutions you are already dead in the water. All the British ones are English ones. TharkunColl (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In the sense of history, many British political institutions derive from English institutions (which is no doubt what Starkey means). In the slightly more pertinent sense of current existence, political institutions are British: that's why you get M.P.s representing all the different administrative divisions of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". To say that the Queen is the "Queen of England" is ill-informed and ahistorical (is Beatrix the 'Queen of Holland'?). Michael Sanders 17:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If the Queen is not "Queen of England", then who is? Don'y say "no one" because that implies that England doesn't exist.
 * Remember that this is a list of people, not states. TharkunColl (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a "List of English monarchs". Firstly, taking it at it's most basic, there are no "English monarchs", because there are no "English citizens", and the subject of English vs British identity is highly complicated - it's beyond the ability of sources and consensus to determine whether a family of German and Greek ancestry which resides in both England and Scotland is "English". Since, moreover, this is in reality a "List of monarchs of the Kingdom of England" - the Kingdom of England has not existed since 1707 (England exists, but only as an administrative region of "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"). There have been no "monarchs of England" since that date. Michael Sanders 18:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please provide sources for your contention that it is inappropriate to place the monarchs on the same list. Starkey does, as does the Guinness Book of Kings, Rulers and Statesmen. So do countless other sources. Wikipedia is built on secondary sources and you must not indulge in politically motivated Original Research. TharkunColl (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * When did the Guiness Book of Kings, Rulers and Statesmen become an authoritative source? Starkey is making an unverified statement as part of an argument - that does not act as an authoritative source to decide a controversial dispute here. Whereas it is not OR to simply stick with the facts that the Act of Union abolished the separate crowns of England and Scotland and created the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" - which based itself constitutionally largely upon the "Kingdom of England", but which was nonetheless a separate organisation (just like there's a difference between the Fourth Republic and the Fifth Republic). That's why, for example, although the peerages of the old kingdoms are maintained, the modern peerage is that of "the United Kingdom". Nobody can be created a "Peer of the Kingdom of England" or a "Peer of the Kingdom of Scotland" today. Michael Sanders 18:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Some English people at the time, whom we may take to be in as good a position to judge as Starkey is, believed otherwise regarding the continued existence of England after 1707, according to Linda Colley:"As a would-be nation, rather than a name, Great Britain was invented in 1707 when the Parliament of Westminster passed the Act of Union linking Scotland to England and Wales. From now on, this document proclaimed, there would be 'one united kingdom of Great Britain', with one Protestant ruler, one legislature and one system of free trade. ... It is sometimes supposed that the Act of Union was a piece of cultural and political imperialism foisted on the hapless Scots by their stronger southern neighbour. But this was not how many eighteenth-century Englishmen regarded it. To some of them, union with Scotland seemed a blatant affront to older identities. They bitterly disapproved of 'English' and 'England' giving way to 'British' and 'Great Britain', as they were in both official and everyday vocabulary by the 1750s."
 * Thus Colley, Britons: forging the nation 1707–1837, pp. 11–13. From all the harping-on about his views, anyone might suppose that Starkey was the only historian ever to have written about this subject or was a particular expert on the unions. But neither of these things are true. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This list ends at 1707, unless it can be prooven that the UK is actually the Kingdom of England. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's precisely what Starkey's quote demonstrates, as does his book and TV series at great length. So once again I ask - why is Starkey no good as a reference for Wikipedia? The episode on Queen Anne even stated that the kingdom "had a new name" from 1707, not that it was a new state. TharkunColl (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "not an off the cuff remark, it's his entire point - outlined in his book and TV series" (TharkunColl in reference to the Starkey quote, justifying reverting the page move). If Starkey is attempting to prove a point, then the relevant work cannot be used to decide a controversial point. Michael Sanders 18:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Read it, have you? He is not arguing a controversial point about the continuity of the state. His controversial thesis is that the English monarchy has fostered freedom and democracy even against its own wishes, which is wholly irrelevant to the current discussion. TharkunColl (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good for them. Nonetheless, if Starkey is trying to prove a point about the English monarchy, then his statements regarding such should be treated with caution. Polemic, even by respected historians, is not always trustworthy. Michael Sanders 20:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not polemic. It's a serious study of the influence of the English monarchy from Anglo-Saxon times to the present day. TharkunColl (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

''The crown of England is the oldest surviving political institution in Europe. In Britain itself, the relationship between monarchy and people created the English national identity and shaped Scotland and Wales''

As others have said, let's be mindful that this is not a quote from an academic work. It is from a documentary marketed for popular appeal. It is certainly not useful as a reference. There is a sense of course in which the first part of the quote is true: the institution formerly known as the Crown of England is continuous with the Crown of the United Kingdom. Elizabeth II is of course a descendent of the last Queen of England, Anne. That's what Starky's audience will understand. But in an academic journal, would he say that the Crown of England still legally exists? If so, how would he prove it? This is what we do not know. So his quote is useless for the sake of editing here.--Gazzster (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * She's not actually a descendant of Anne, but she's the legal successor of her, which is more important in this case... Michael Sanders 23:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Gazzster (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "the institution formerly known as the Crown of England is continuous with the Crown of the United Kingdom." Thank you, yes, because that's precisely what I've been saying. TharkunColl (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think so, yes. But legally? No.--Gazzster (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The law does not always, or indeed often, describe reality. This is something that very few Wikipedia editors seem to appreciate. TharkunColl (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I know this is one of your themes, and I agree with it, to an extent. There can, of course, be a difference between the theoretical situation as circumscribed by law and the practicality. But on the other hand, the law, odd and impractical as it may seem sometimes, reflects a historical situation. In this case, England and Scotland united to form the United Kingdom. This is a historical article and so we need to go by the history, not by popular understanding. You could note that the sovereign of the United Kingdom is popular called the King/Queen of England. Why not?--Gazzster (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember folks, if we add British monarchs to this list (and not to the Scottish list), we'll have alot of other 'related' articles to change over. Now, do we really want to go through all of that? GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not a valid reason not to change it. TharkunColl (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

True. The reason not to change it is because it would not reflect the legal reality.--Gazzster (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And how about the actual reality? TharkunColl (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In spite of our agreement on the actual reality, it's a matter of opinion for both of us.--Gazzster (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tharky, I know you're not concerned with how your proposed edits here (and at the British list) will effect the relating biography articles; but they will. Unless you can successfully build a consensus to have the articles Anne of Great Britain to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom changed to Anne of England to Elizabeth II of England, your proposals here, won't stick. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh? I never suggested, nor do I want, any such thing - that is a straw man version of my argument. If anything I would rather change the name of the current list to "List of English and British monarchs". TharkunColl (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd have to make it List of English, Scottish, Irish and British monarchs. Sorry, but you're stuck with Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? "English and British" very neatly describes the change in nomenclature in 1707. There is no need to mention Scotland in the title because that was British after 1707. Same with Ireland from 1801 to 1922. The title is succinct and completely accurate. TharkunColl (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No way around it, the Kingdom of Great Britain (& thus its successor the UK) is the successor of both the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland (not the Kingdom of England only). GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In so far is it extinguished the Kingdom of Scotland and took over its assets, yes. The same applies to all the Welsh kingdoms as well. And Cornwall. And the kingdoms of the Heptarchy except Wessex - which is the one that became the Kingdom of England. TharkunColl (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Kingdom of England did not 'extinguish the Kingdom of Scotland and take over its assets'. The Scottish Parliament and the English parliament both agreed to a merge between the two Kingdoms, in which the kingdom would be ruled by a single monarch, and in which the three estates would be represented by a common parliament. Both Kingdoms, with the act of union, ceased to exist. That is history. It is also history, it is true, that in this new "Kingdom of Great Britain", much of the institutions were recycled institutions of the Kingdom of England (well, so what, much of the institutions in the Roman Republic were recycled institutions from the Kingdom of Rome, that doesn't make the two synonymous). That doesn't mean that it was the "Kingdom of England". However much you (and the English at the time) may dislike it - England, as much as Scotland, became 'British' with the Act of Union. Michael Sanders 02:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Before we go off on tangents, back to this: England and the UK are still separate legal entities. You have to address that, and opinions don't really help. But about combining the lists of English and British monarchs: that actually makes sense. I've seen that done often in lists. Kings of Scotland would be a separate list, with links to English and British monarchs when James VI and I is mentioned.--Gazzster (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make sense. If anything, it makes more sense to combine the list of Scottish and British monarchs - the dynasty under whom the two kingdoms were united was Scottish after all, so one might argue that Scotland took over England. Michael Sanders 01:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, yes. That's precisely what I'm arguing for. And I would suggest the title "List of English and British monarchs". TharkunColl (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's only one way to settle this, have an 'RfC'. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Also I've contacted WikiProject British Royalty, see what those members think. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

How about a simple vote first? We appear to have two in favour of a combined list (title to be decided later), and how many against? Anyway here's mine:

Actually, the current Queen is one-quarter German, one-quarter English (assuming her Grandfather was English, although he actually had more German than English blood) and one-half SCOTTISH, as her mother was Scottish. Elizabeth actually has more German and Scottish blood in her ancestry than English blood. So calling her "English" from an ancestral perspective is just wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.149.222 (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yay. Makes much more sense and is also how the info is almost always presented. TharkunColl (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No. The Kingdom of England (like the Kingdom of Scotland) ceased to exist in 1707. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No To pretend that there was no union between the two kingdoms, and that England 'took over' Scotland, is inaccurate, and offensive to my sense of history. Furthermore, the proposal is unacceptable as it stands: either a common article - "List of monarchs of the UK and its predecessor realms" - should be created (which would have no clear cut-off point - you could go back as far as the Celtic tribes - and would certainly require presentation of Welsh, Irish and Scottish monarchs, contemporaneously with the English monarchs - which would be untidy); or the monarchs of Britain/UK should also be included in the "List of Scottish monarchs" (which requires duplication, with risks if information is changed or becomes contradictory, and is unhelpful besides). It makes far more sense to keep things as they are - it is tidier, more helpful to readers, and more in line with actual history, less agenda-serving. Michael Sanders 01:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No. It might be prudent to suggest a move to "List of monarchs of X" in order to clarify the purpose of the article. Is the current Queen English? Yes. Is she the "Queen of England"? No.-- Ibagli rnbs ( Talk ) 09:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yay. It should be combined. It would be more intuitive and aesthetically pleasing, and was actually what I was looking for when I came to this page :-).  59.100.178.178 (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yay. I hope you don't mind Gazzster but I've put a "yay" here for you as this is the opinion you have expressed in the comment below and elsewhere. This will simply make it easier to keep track of who is in favour of what. TharkunColl (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am in favour of a 'List of English and UK monarchs'. I'd rather like to vote for myself though. I'd like to qualify that no-one, Tharky least of all, is suggesting that we disregard the legal effects of the Act of Union. I think it's convenient to list English monarchs in a continuous line with monarchs of the United Kingdom. That's how it's commonly done. Now you could argue we could do the same for Scottish monarchs. But its not commonly done. It shouldn't be a matter of Anglophile and Scotophile (In think I just invented a word). It's about what is user friendly. We so often get precious about things. I find that Wikipedia is a forum of politics rather than the exchange of knowledge. While I do enjoy the stimulation, thev politics can bog down discussion for eons.--Gazzster (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No. TC wants to insert factually incorrect information into the article. Bill Reid | Talk 14:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply. On the contrary, I want to insert info into the article in order to prevent it from being misleading. Any qualms about nomenclature are easily dealt with by renaming it "List of English and British monarchs". TharkunColl (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So why reinvent the wheel when the list that you want already exists within List of monarchs in the British Isles and the list of British monarchs covers all bases. Your section in the talk page of List of British monarchs titled  Prof. David Starkey on the continuity of the English-British state  demonstrates your POV and Starkey's that English = British.  This article should not give this totally false impression.  I'll comment further over at the British monarchs page. Bill Reid | Talk 15:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To describe my argument as English=British is incorrect, and indeed a straw man version of what I'm saying. What I'm actually saying is that the English state became the British state. And Starkey is a perfectly respectable source whatever your own POV opinion of him. Wikipedia is built on such sources, not on Original Research. TharkunColl (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: 'List of the monarchs of the Uk and its predecessor realms' - no-one else has so far suggested that, and it is not the only option.I agree, that would be untidy. But 'List of monarchs of England and the UK' would not. We would ensure of course that it was clear that the title King/Queen of the UK was only used to legal effect since 1707. It is common for texts to list the monarchs of the UK and England in one continuous list. I have in front of me Kingdoms of Europe by Gene Gurney. He has a list from Egbert to Elizabeth II in a chapter entitled 'England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom. Antonia Fraser does the same. In fact, every list I've seen does the same. I don't see a problem.--Gazzster (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem? It's offensive to the Scottish, it's ahistorical, and however common it may be to do so in a casual manner, it is not appropriate, and it is not helpful: it gives the readers the impression that the opinions of TharkunColl - that England 'took over' Scotland, that the modern UK is England writ large - are in fact accurate. We are here to inform, not mislead, and to suggest that English and British monarchs are continuous, but that Scottish and British monarchs, or Irish and British monarchs, are not, is extraordinarily damaging. Michael Sanders 02:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it offensive to the Scots? Kings and Queens of Scotland would not be included. They would have their own list. England did 'take over' Scotland. Historical fact I'm afraid. My ancestors were Scots and I lament the English domination. But there is a continuous succession between English and British monarchs. I don't see how one could say otherwise. Anne was both Queen of England and Queen of the United Kingdom. The fact that the idea may or may not further English imperialism is irrelevant to the historical fact. --Gazzster (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's offensive to claim that Scotland was 'taken over' by the English, and to arrange articles in such a way as to imply that the Queen is in effect Queen of England in her role as Queen of the UK, whilst excluding Scotland - a country she also reigns over in her role as Queen of the UK. It is also ahistorical. Yes, the Scots were co-erced. But all due process was followed, and the Scottish and English parliaments both consented to the dissolution of the Kingdoms they represented, and the creation of a common kingdom.


 * Furthermore, Anne was also Queen of Scotland, until the Act of Union. Then she was Queen of neither England nor Scotland, only Queen in England and Scotland as Queen of Great Britain.


 * And, I think you are sadly mistaken if you believe there is a "continuous succession between English and British monarchs". The Scottish royals, if you recall, took over in 1603. They had ruled continuously in Scotland, and - with the exception of the Commonwealth - did so until the Act of Union. Whereas with the Tudors, the crown of England was passed to the Scottish royalty.#


 * In other words, you could make as good an argument for continuity between Scotland and Britain as between England and Britain. Meaning that it is far simpler and less controversial to simply stick with things as they are, accepting that both the Kingdoms of England and Scotland ended in 1707, and keeping things tidier by beginning a new article. Michael Sanders 02:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think RfC's necessary yet. The discussion has only involved four so far. We could wait till others have recovered from Xmas hangovers. Now I'm certainly not in favour of naming a monarch after 1707 King/Queen of England. That's just not correct. But it would make sense to have monarchs of England and the UK in one list, with their proper titles. It's commonly done. And in Wikipedia we do love splicing and nuancing things endlessly! Just think of the legion of 'Commonwealth realm' articles!--Gazzster (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. you guys really went to work here. But this argument is one of the good things about Wikipedia. But a short historical note. The Scots were not coerced. Those who know little of history know little of the dismal economic state and political turmoil Scotland was in during this period. Union was one of the only ways out of it. The other was war, with England, which would have put the head of state of both countries, who also was the same person, at war with herself! But no matter what one said, the union settled the island's conflicts and allowed Britannia to become the power that it did, with the English, Welsh, and Scots to start their imperial efforts abroad...for better or worse. (I guess that was not a short historical note). Oh, the list stops at 1707.Gary Joseph (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If we did that, then we'd have to do the same thing at List of monarchs of Scotland, and essentially there would be 3 content forks, all with a list of monarchs of the UK. I think we should focus on the way we want to present it as an encyclopedia instead of trying to find The Truth. The way I see it, there are two options:
 * 1) Merge this page with List of monarchs of Scotland and List of British monarchs
 * 2) Leave it as it was

I prefer the latter. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 10:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's also remember that there's an article called List of monarchs in the British Isles, which covers English, Scottish and British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Further proof of the obvious fact that the English state became the British state
A state is made up of functionaries, and the following are examples of functionaries whose jurisdiction was England before 1 May 1707 and Great Britain thereafter:


 * Henry Boyle, Chancellor of the Exchequer 1701-1708 (office created 1316).
 * Charles Spencer, Southern Secretary 1706-1710 (office created 1660, renamed Home Secretary 1782).
 * Robert Harley, Northern Secretary 1704-1708 (office created 1660, renamed Foreign Secretary 1782).
 * William Cowper, Lord Chancellor (acting) 1705-1708 (office created 1068).
 * Thomas Herbet, Lord President of the Council 1702-1708 (office created 1530).
 * John Holles, Lord Privy Seal 1705-1711 (office created 1307).
 * John Churchill, Master-General of Ordnance 1702-1712 (office created 1544).
 * Thomas Grey, President of the Board of Trade 1705-1711 (office created 1672).
 * Sidney Godolphin, First Lord of the Treasury 1702-1710 (office created 1126 as Lord High Treasurer, and effectively became that of Prime Minister 1721).

There are many, many other examples, and I have concentrated on the really important offices. In all cases these were founded in England and extended their jurisdiction to the whole of Britain in 1707. A state consists of officers such as these, performing their functions, and there is not a single example of an English officer vacating his post in 1707, or the post itself being abolished. Conversely, it goes without saying that no Scottish governmental office, or officer, saw his jurisdiction expand to include the whole of Britain. Indeed most found themselves pensioned off (i.e. bribed). TharkunColl (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're still legally stuck with Scotland after 1707, your only hope is for a repeal of the Union Act, sorry. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * All you're doing is making assertions based on your POV. A state can expand and it can change its name. TharkunColl (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Or it can link up with another state and become a new state under a different name. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * When has that ever really happened? There is always one state that does all the running and takes over the other one. Please provide evidence that there was no continuity of governance. I have provided evidence of the precise opposite. TharkunColl (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It happend in 1707 with the Act of Union 1707, the Kingdom of Scotland & the Kingdom of England merged to become the Kingdom of Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And as I have demonstrated above, the English offices and officers of state took over Scotland. A state consists of its offices and officers. Can you not understand this? TharkunColl (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you understand, that the 1707 Union Act was never repealed. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about? What possible relevance does that statement have to the fact that the union of 1707 was a takeover by one state of another? Now, please provide evidence to back up your assertion that the Scots were equally in control of the kingdom after 1707 as the English were. TharkunColl (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please show me evidence where the 1707 Act of Union was later modified, proclaiming England the dominant state in the UK. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? I have never asserted that any such statement was made. There is no need to make it, because it obviously is. England has 83 percent of the population of the UK. The capital of England is the capital of the UK. England contains almost all the wealth of the UK. There are all those English offices of state listed above which still exist today, but now have jurisdiction over the whole UK - and none of the Scottish ones do. Does anyone doubt that England is the dominant state of the UK? Now please prove otherwise. I will however quote a very interestingly named modification to the Acts of Union 1707, cited in its article - "Soon after the Union, the Act 6 Anne c.11 (later infelicitously named "The Union with Scotland (Amendment) Act 1707") united the English and Scottish Privy Councils and decentralised Scottish administration by appointing justices of the peace in each shire to carry out administration. In effect it took the day to day government of Scotland out of the hands of politicians and into those of the College of Justice." Why is its title described as "infelicitious" do you think? Union with Scotland... from a parliament that already represented Scotland? What's going on here do you think? And also notice the number 6 before Anne's name. That refers to her length of reign. 6 years, from 1702. If it was a "new" state, she'd only be in year 1 in 1707. TharkunColl (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want consensus to swing your way, I'd suggest you start trying to convince others of your English takeover theory, because you're not convincing me. I'll try and refrain from responding to your arguments on this topic, so as others may respond to you (either in support or against). GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I must admit, I'm becoming more thoughtful about the issue I raised. I can see what Tharky is saying, and I can see what GoodDay is saying. They're both making sense. Scotland was taken over by England, as Thark says. But in law it was a union, as GoodDay says. But in effect it was a takeover. The Scottish MPs didn't have much choice but to vote for it. And certainly after the Jacobite Wars it was a military invasion also. I believe that's what TharkunColl is saying. But I don't know how that concession helps us with this list.--Gazzster (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, in this case the legalistic argument is the best to go with. The 'in effect' argument is subject to too much interpretation – yes the Scots didn't have much of a choice in the matter, but they had a choice, whilst you could make a case for the Jacobite rebellion being the union putting down a threat to unity rather than England conquering Scotland – to ever come to a clear conclusion. Whereas we all seem to agree that, in theory and by law, the two kingdoms came to an end in 1707. Can we therefore just leave it at that and accept that we probably don't agree about the actual ramifications of the 'union'? Michael Sanders 02:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl, continuity of administration is quite common when unitary states join each other to form another unitary state. This is what happened in the British Isles. It is also common in the merging of units to form federal states too. (for example Australia). What you present as proof is nothing more than a political and governance convenience. This also happened in Spain, prior to their current constitutional revisions (that made it, in effect, a federal state). This also happened in Italy and Germany, prior to the latter's federalisation. And there are instances when two states join and form a new polity without one taking over the other. Gary Joseph (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, but the point I was making was that this continuity of administration was completely one-sided. All the English departments and officers of state expanded their jurisdiction to include Scotland in 1707, whereas all the Scottish ones were abolished. Further, all the current UK great offices of state - Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, even Prime Minister (as First Lord of the Treasury) were English offices of state before 1707, with a continuity of incumbents that in all cases straddled 1707 as listed above. TharkunColl (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And there was no new Parliament in 1707. It was the same English Parliament before the Act, augmented by Scottish MPs and with a change of name.--Gazzster (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and just to prove that it was the same parliament, the Triennial Act then in place (which forced general elections after a maximum of 3 years), kicked in in 1708, 3 years after the last English general election in 1705. If it was a "new" parliament, the act wouldn't have kicked in again until 1710. Indeed, why was this act that was passed by the English parliament solely about its own procedure still effective at all? TharkunColl (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

But the UK is not a federal state. There is but one government, ruled from a Westminster dominated by English seats (notwithstanding the Scottish Paliament with limited powers). That is his point I think.--Gazzster (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that this whole discussion missed the point of NPOV. Certain things happened in 1707, which were then, as now, capable of differing interpretations. There is no real "objective truth" to be found here. There is, and can only be, POV.--Docg 22:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Subsequent Unions
I've removed the sentence of subsequent unions, since it's not in the List of Scottish monarchs article. It should be in both related articles or neither. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)