Talk:List of English monarchs/Archive 4

Twaddle
Er I am brand new here so might be missing a point but has anyone looked at the start of this article lately? I don't know what to do but it looks like someone has been playing at writing twaddle.Ex-Milo (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to last night's vandalism, it's already been cleaned up. – The Parting Glass 11:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bodicia - now she cetrainly wasnt crowned Queen - but i would have her in some were as a foot note as she led the People of ENGLAND against its enemies the Roman's. That would make her a Queen in my eyes :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.113.138 (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * She didn't lead the whole of England, just part of it. Richard75 (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Question
If the English monarchy was by male monarch only, which descendant would the present British King? Whom would he be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.59.196 (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody can know that, since William the Conqueror's only grandson didn't leave any issue. Thus, William I's male line died out in the 12th century. Surtsicna (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Further, even without such complications, it's an impossible counterfactual. It assumes that royal marriages would have happened under the same basis, whereas clearly if some duke who would have been king someday after the exclusion of princess cousins, he would have been married off differently. William Quill (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Philip
I propose moving Philip II of Spain from the List of English consorts to the List of English monarchs, including Philip in the Template:English Monarchs and including him in the relevant succession boxes. The Spanish Wiki already lists him as monarch of England. Why? Because he reigned as a joint monarch of England.

The facts which confirm that Philip was co-monarch of England:


 * 1) Philip was styled "King of England". All Kings of England were monarchs of England, as England had no history of kings consort.
 * 2) All official documents (including Acts of Parliament) were dated with names of Philip and Mary. In fact, his name appeared before hers.
 * 3) Parliament was called under the joint authority of Philip and Mary. Parliament is never called under the authority of a consort.
 * 4) Coins showed the heads of both Mary and Philip, often with a single crown suspended between them, indicating joint rule. The Great Seal shows Philip and Mary seated on thrones, holding the crown together.
 * 5) The marriage contract stipulated that the new King will admit no stranger in offices. How could a consort admit anyone in an office? Also, Philip's approval was sought when appointment to a high office was considered. It is known that Philip forbidden John Mason to reassume his office.
 * 6) The Pope issued a papal bull declaring that Philip and Mary are the rightful King and Queen of Ireland. The Pope would not mention Philip as the rightful King of Ireland had he been a consort only, as consorts have nothing to do with sovereignity.
 * 7) An act which made it high treason to deny Philip's royal authority was passed in Ireland. (I guess that Wikipedians could be accused of high treason for saying that Philip was a mere king consort...)
 * 8) Since the new King of England could not read English, it was ordered that a note of all such matters of state as should pass from hence should be made in Latin or Spanish henceforth.
 * 9) Their joint royal style gave precedence to Philip, which would make no sense had Philip been just a consort.
 * 10) The Privy Council instructed that Philip and Mary should be joint signatories of royal documents.
 * 11) The coat of arms of England was impaled with those of Spain to "denote the joint reign of Queen Mary I and her husband Philip of Spain". The shield also occurs on the silver coinage and on their Great Seal.
 * 12) Both Mary I and Philip came from a family in which men traditionally reigned by the right of their wives. Mary I's grandfather, who also happened to be Philip's great-grandfather, reigned as King Ferdinand V of Castile by the right of his wife. Philip's father, who also happened to be Mary's uncle, reigned as King Philip I of Castile by the right of his wife.
 * 13) When Mary I died, Philip proposed marriage to her successor, as that was the only way he could continue his reign in England.
 * 14) When Mary II wanted to make her husband co-monarch, the joint reign of Philip (I) and Mary I was mentioned as the precedent.

Although Mary I retained her regnal rights and prerogatives, "Philip's own royal status was not envisioned as that of a mere consort, as would have been the case had the genders been reversed; rather, his status seems to have been construed as that of a co-monarch for the duration of his marriage to the Queen".

The proclamation stipulated: "Philip should for so long as the matrimony endureth be allowed to have and enjoy jointly together with the same most noble Queen his wife the style, honour, and kingly name of the realms and dominions unto the said most noble Queen appertaining, and shall aid the same most noble Queen his wife in the prosperous administration of her realms and dominions." Professor Roger Lockyer also says that the marriage contract stipulated that Philip was to assist Mary in the government of the country - no other consort was promised to have their share in the government, so it could only mean that Philip, a man and thus considered more capable than Mary, was supposed to reign alongside her.

It should also be stressed that referring to the joint reign of Philip and Mary is almost as common as referring to the joint reign of William and Mary.



Philip: discussion

 * Support: I think this makes a pretty good case for adding Philip to the list. I would still keep him on the list of consorts as well though. Richard75 (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Provisional support: On the face of it, Surtsicna makes a very convincing case.  But playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, I wonder why, despite all the evidence, the British Royal Family do not consider Philip worthy of rating a mention as a monarch.  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the fact that he was a Spanish Popist who actually fought against England comes to my mind. Surtsicna (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant if he was legitimate English monarch according to law. --  JackofOz (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That should be irrelevant, but it doesn't have to be. I can't know for sure what's in their heads. What I do know is that there was no United Kingdom in 1603, like the official website claims. I also know that, although Jane's status is highly disputed among notable scholars, the official website lists her as undoubtful monarch. My point is that the official website contradicts many respected scholars, as well as undisputable facts. We certainly shouldn't trust it blindly. Surtsicna (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well maybe we should then also exclude Edward VI and Elizabeth I for being Protestant heretics who suppressed their people or Henry VII for being a Welsh robber who stole the crown? No, neither these nor yours can be criteria.
 * Disputed are those who pressed forth a claim in their day without succeeding. Jane certainly is not an "undoubtful monarch". Str1977 (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Reject: What the above list amounts to, essentially, is original reseach. On the other hand, here's a proper citation, from Archontology : "Philip's royal authority as king-consort was limited by the marriage treaty and his subordinate status was defined in a number of parliamentary acts. Called by his father, Philip left England on 29 Aug 1555. Karl V resigned the Netherlands (21 Oct 1555) and the kingdoms of Spain and the Spanish overseas empire (16 Jan 1556) in favor of Philip. After almost two years of childless marriage, Mary died in 1558 and Philip forfeited any rights to the English throne as he was entitled to exercise it only "for so long as the matrimony endureth". ðarkun coll 07:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, original research? Eleven citations and twelve points sourced by over 20 references is what you call original research and the website you cite is somehow superior to the eleven scholars I cite? Archontology actually confirms the fact that Philip was a co-monarch jure uxoris: Mary died in 1558 and Philip forfeited any rights to the English throne as he was entitled to exercise it only "for so long as the matrimony endureth". How could one forfeit rights to the throne if one never enjoyed those rights? Furthermore, it says that Philip was entitled to enjoy the right to the throne during his marriage to Mary I. Nobody disputes the fact Philip was the subordinate one of the two co-monarchs, just like Henry the Young King was subordinate to his father and Mary II was de facto subordinate to her husband. It doesn't mean they were not monarchs. Surtsicna (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said he wasn't a monarch. He was a monarch in exactly the same way as the wife of a king is a monarch, and occupies the throne with her husband. ðarkun coll 14:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you claim that a queen consort is a monarch in any way, and especially jointly and equally with her husband, your point fails utterly. Anyway, Philip's position was clearly higher than that of a queen consort. Surtsicna (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

See also the newly added point 11 above. Surtsicna (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A queen consort is a monarch - she is even crowned - but is not in any way equal to her husband. Philip may have had a higher status than a queen consort, but his status was nevertheless still subordinate to Mary. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have expired on her death. For a complete contrast, look at William and Mary - though legally classed as co-monarchs, William was specifically given the higher status, and his monarchy did not expire on Mary's death, even though it was Mary who was the heir, not William. ðarkun coll 15:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your comment makes no sense whatsoever. I am not going to explain to you the difference between a monarch and a consort. It's perfectly obvious who is who. Also, William was not given a specifically higher status de jure and Mary was not the heir, as they were both offered the throne by the parliament. Unless you have an evidence that Philip was not a co-monarch with Mary I, we have nothing else to discuss. Surtsicna (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's you that needs to provide evidence that he was, I'm afraid. I've presented the evidence for his subordinate status, which is also indicated by your own evidence. ðarkun coll 16:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have already presented 13 books and cited more than 15 scholars, along with American Numismatic Association, British Museum and British Library. I'm afraid your demand for evidence is therefore without basis. Anyway, I have never claimed that Philip wasn't subordinated to Mary I, but he was a co-monarch nontheless. Surtsicna (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * On this point I have to agree completely with Surtsicna. The wife or husband of a monarch (let's leave aside King Philip and William/Mary) is the consort of a monarch.  Wives of kings are crowned, and they have the title "Queen" (consort, not Queen regnant) but that doesn't make them monarchs, because coronation does not even make the monarch a monarch.  Elizabeth II became monarch at the instant of George VI's death, but her coronation did not occur until about 16 months later.  Husbands of queens are not even crowned (Princes Albert and Phillip never were) and do not get called King.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's just keep in mind that the issue here is not whether Philip's status was subordinate to Mary, but whether he acted in the capacity of a king regnant or merely as a king consort. He was certainly closer to William III that he is to the current Duke of Edinburgh. I also doubt that the above amounts to original research, given the number of secondary sources cited. I suggest adding him to the list, but so as to avoid Wikipedia being seen to advance a particular view we could have a note that the position is not accepted by everybody, in the same way that we have done for Jane, Matilda and others. Richard75 (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If we are going to put a note that he is not regarded as monarch by everybody, we will need to find sources which claim that he was not a monarch. A source which simpy doesn't mention him would not be enough. Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So far as the British Monarchy website is concerned, we don't know who wrote it -- they probably did not commission Simon Schama or David Starkey to write it for them, so in spite of its "official" status, it is of dubious authority. Richard75 (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The artical is 'List of English Monarchs' since when was philp an enlgish monarch (ie king or queen of england), he shouldnt even be on the list to righting a note saying he is not regarded as a monarch by everyone no one regards him as a monarch, the fact that he is never/almost never mentioned in lists of english monarchs is proof that few regard him as king, also remembering that wikipedia is suppost to be written for general people not specialists. Alexsau1991 (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Those who read what I said know which sholars and which institutions regard Philip as Mary I's co-monarch. You obviously didn't read anything about this case, as you don't even know that Philip was granted the title of King of England by the marriage contract. You claim that nobody regards him as monarch, even though I cited more than 15 scholars who explain that he was a co-monarch. Read something (my explanation above for example) before joining discussions and please write in an understandable manner (I have no idea what you meant by "wikipedia is suppost to be written for general people not specialists"). You should also provide sources and citations, like I did. Thank you. Surtsicna (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a very weak dicussion so far, and amounting to little more than original research. See here, here, here and here for lists of British monarchs that exclude Philip II of Spain. YeshuaD avid   •  Talk  • 14:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion is not weak. Claiming that this is all original research even though it's supported by more than 15 scholars (such as Professor Roger Lockyer) and institutions (such as British Museum and British Library) is the weak arguement. I guess that now, all of a sudden, websites such as www.englishmonarchs.co.uk and broadcasters such as BBC are more credible and reliable than scholars, museums and national libraries. Surtsicna (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Philip has got to be removed, as he was only King-consort of England and Ireland. When Mary I died (in 1558), Elizabeth I succeeded the throne. Had Philip truly been co-monarch with Mary? He would've continued as sole English monarch after his wife's death (see William III of England). -- GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, would you all please read my arguements presented above? If you do read them, you will understand that Philip's monarchial rights and honours were to last during his marriage to Mary. That's what jure uxoris means. To cite Montrose again: Philip's own royal status was not envisioned as that of a mere consort, as would have been the case had the genders been reversed; rather, his status seems to have been construed as that of a co-monarch for the duration of his marriage to the Queen. William did not reign as Mary's husband. He reigned as the man who was offered the throne by the parliament and his status cannot be compared to Philip's (even though the example pf Philip was mentioned when Mary II demanded to reign together with her husband). Anyway, please read my arguements above. Surtsicna (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the inclusion of Philip is okay - if only because articles such as this should be as inclusive as possible. ðarkun coll 14:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is, despite a strong case to include Philip, Wikipedia is a tertiary source; and most credible lists, such as the ones I've mentioned, don't include Phlip. YeshuaD avid   •  Talk  • 14:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet scholars and institutions (all of whom are more credible than any website) consider him a co-monarch. Surtsicna (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Philip's gotta go. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if you prove that he was not a co-monarch, which you haven't done so far. Surtsicna (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Did Philip remain 'King of England and Ireland', upon Mary's death? GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, but that's not necessarily relevant. My own view is that Philip was subordinate to Mary, and was therefore a consort. I was fairly reluctant to include him, but it also can't be denied that he bore the title "King", as no other male (or female, for that matter) consort has done. ðarkun coll 14:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeshus David: The problem with that argument is that a number of credible lists do include Philip, and they don't suddenly lose their credibility just because they're in the minority. The question of who is and is not a monarch of England is not decided by a vote among experts.  At the very least, there's a case for including Philip with an annotation that not all sources consider him to be a monarch, but showing those reputable sources that do.  Nobody disputes that Henry VIII was an English monarch, so he appears on all lists.  If it were just some undergraduate claiming that Philip was a monarch, we could easily dismiss that. The sources Surtsicna provides are far from breathless undergraduates.  It would be interesting to find out from old sources exactly when he was dropped from most standard lists, and why.  That's assuming he was on such lists of monarchs to begin with.  And if he never was, that might say something.  --  JackofOz (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

TharkunColl is right. Philip was granted monarchical rights by the marriage contract and was recognized by the Acts of Parliament. The marriage contract stipulated that Philip's monarchical rights are to last during his marriage to Mary I. When Mary I's reign ended with her death, his reign ended too because he was no longer married to Mary and he therefore forfeited his rights to the English throne according to the marriage contract. Mary I's grandmother reigned over Castile together with her husband; when she died, her husband's reign ended, yet nobody disputes the fact that he was a co-monarch. Surtsicna (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (Somebody deleted my previous post). Again, if Philip is staying? we should have some kinda dispute note next to his name, as historians dispute his position. Also, Joanna's reign as Queen of Castile continued after her hubby's death until her own death in 1555. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (I'm sorry if I was the one who removed your post, I get edit conflicts quite often) Once again, if we are going to add a dispute note explaining that some historians dispute his position, we need to cite historians who argue about his position or claim that he was not a monarch. Merely ignoring Philip would not be enough. I wasn't talking about Mary's aunt Joanna. I was talking about Mary's grandmother Isabella and grandfather Ferdinand (Isabella I and Ferdinand V of Castile). Surtsicna (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mistake noted with my 'crossing out'. Anyways, if you would agree to a dispute note, Phil can stay. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * JackofOz: Well, I admit, this is certainly a very strong case for inclusion. I would guess Philip was dropped since since he was hardly England's favourite individual... Which minority lists are you talking about though? I would suggest we add a note beside his name, and put his name in italics, to signify that he is not widely considered to be an English king. YeshuaD avid   •  Talk  • 15:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * he is not widely considered to be an English king - you mean he is not widely considered to be an English monarch? Nobody disputes the fact that he was granted the title of King of England and that he used it. Surtsicna (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By king I mean King-regnant. In the same way that Caroline of Ansbach was queen-consort, but not sovereign. YeshuaD avid   •  Talk  • 21:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if they'd had a child. When Mary died, even though Phillip lost his rights, the child would have become monarch, and would have had Phillip's name. Some might say the child would have succeeded only because it was the child of Mary. But there's an equally valid argument that it gained its inheritance through both parents. Even if Philip had died before Mary did, the child would have succeeded when Mary died, and would have been the first monarch of a new dynasty, one named after Philip. And we would never have had Elizabeth I. --  JackofOz (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the child would derive its succession rights through Mary. When Joanna of Castile's husband died, she contiuned to reign over Castile alone, not with her son. Anyway, I'd agree with YeshuaDavid's proposal. Saying that Philip is not widely considered an English monarch, even though scholars regard him as such, is better than saying that his status is disputed because we would have to say which scholars argue about his status (I haven't found any scholarly work that argues about his status). Surtsicna (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Henry VIII would've rolled over in his grave. Oops, he likely did anyways, in 1603. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good job it turned out to be a tumour then instead, otherwise England would have become a province of the Habsburg Empire. ðarkun coll 15:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's kinda cruel thing to say, TharkunColl. Yet it's humorous too :) Surtsicna (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol. ðarkun coll 15:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Which portrait should we use? The list currently uses a portrait made in 1557, while he was still King of England. Should we use the famous joint portrait of Philip and Mary to denote their joint reign and Philip's dependency upon Mary? Surtsicna (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably not the joint one, if only because these are supposed to be individual portraits. Even Williamandmary don't get a joint portrait. ðarkun coll 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Individual portrait remains where it is. Surtsicna (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Apropros of nothing other than shooting the breeze, it's also interesting to speculate what would happen if Prince Charles takes the regnal name Philip. Would he be Philip I or Philip II? It's not entirely beyond belief that he might do that. It's one of his given names, and his father's name. If Prince Philip were to die not long before Charles becomes king, I'd never be surprised if he called himself King Philip in his father's memory. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * William could also reign as Philip, as that is one of his regnal names. It would be interesting to have Philip II and Philip III. However, I don't think that will happen. Surtsicna (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Charles has apparently said that he wants to be George VII. Richard75 (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have just discovered this Act of Parliament, 1 Mar. stat. 2 c. 2 (scroll to bottom of page), which gave legal force to the marriage treaty. It is not set out here in full but is summarised as saying that Mary "shall and may only, as sole Queen, use and enjoy the crown and sovereignty over her dominions and subjects..." although it does then go on to say that Philip must be named with her on all letters patent etc.. So I think his status is not completely clear, and he should be on the list with some kind of a "disputed" or "not widely considered" note as suggested above. Richard75 (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll need a 'dispute note'. IMHO, Philip is no more King of England and Ireland, then Henry Stuart was King of Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * True, they were both legally kings, but one of them was a co-monarch, while the other one was consort (although Henry demanded Crown Matrimonial, which would've made him co-monarch too). Indeed, Philip's status is not completely clear, but instead of disputed we should put either "not widely considered" or "status unclear". This website also argues about the contradictory statements in the marriage contract, ultimately stating that it's not clear whether English ministers wished Philip to become involved in affairs of state or not. The marriage contract was violated on several occassions: when Mary I decided to help her husband in his wars and the provisions you cite were also violated (Philip enjoyed the crown of England and acted as sovereign). Surtsicna (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The full text of the Act which you linked to includes the phrase "[Philip] shall aid her Highness, being his wife, in the happy administration of her Grace’s realms and dominions," (which was missing from the summary I linked to above). It clearly was a contradictory document, so I agree that "status unclear" is better wording. I will add a link to this webpage in the article. Richard75 (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Reject. The above is indeed original research when it reaches its conclusion. The details are mostly true and sourced, the conclusion is at least not sourced.
 * Furthermore it engages in begging the question when it says England had no Kings-consort and then deduces that Philipp there had to be something else. Yes, England had no Kings-consort but Philipp is the one notable exception.
 * And even as consort, as husband he then had a certain rights over and through his wife. King jure uxoris would be something else - it would mean that Philip was the actual ruler of England though his title came through his wife: examples are the subsequent husbands of Eleanor of Aquitaine and Maximilian I in the Burgundian lands, where he actually ruled from his marriage to the death of his wife Mary. Afterwards his son became Duke and Max's rights were null and void and he had to fight to obtain the regency. But the contrast to Mary of England is apparent as Mary was the one that ruled England whereas Mary of Burgundy did nothing of the sort.
 * Where we can find the space, we can give some treatment to his special role - but he is not disputed (his role is not disputed) - but where we can't (such as the English monarchs template) we shouldn't. Str1977 (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I reject your rejection because it makes no sense. The conclusion is sourced by two references and I can find more if you need more. I don't even know why I bothered gathering all those references when everyone pretends that they are not there.
 * Your arguement about the first point is also contradictory: England had no Kings-consort but Philipp is the one notable exception. So England had no king consorts, but Philip was a king consort of England.
 * Kings jure uxoris reigned with their wives de jure, but not always de facto. Philip and Mary's (great)grandparents reigned together over Castile as Ferdinand V and Isabella I, but only Isabella was de facto ruler in Castile, just like Mary I was a de facto ruler in England. This doesn't make Philip's status null: he still acted as sovereign and was represented as such.
 * I'm really growing tired of explaining the same thing to each user who sees Philip listed here. All of them say it's original research, although each and every statement is supported by one or two sources (there can be more!), and in the end, the conclusion is the same - he was more a co-monarch than a consort. Surtsicna (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, this is what Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says about Philip (why he is rarely listed as monarch nowadays): "Although his time as co-monarch has largely vanished from the collective memory, to be replaced by images of invincible armadas and inquisitorial fires, ..." I believe JackofOz was interested in this. Surtsicna (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. If that were the only reference to his co-monarchy, we could ignore it as just poetic licence.  But it's not inconsistent with the other evidence you've gathered.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just checked some refs on my own shelves. The Cambridge Biographical Encyclopedia (ed. David Crystal) says, of Philip, "... he married Mary I (1554), becoming joint sovereign of England". Mary's entry merely says that she married him, but no mention of joint sovereignty.  The table of English monarchs at the back lists Mary but has no mention of Philip.  Chambers Dictionary of World History has exactly the same wording about Philip, but again, Mary's entry makes no mention of any joint sovereignty.  When we come to a final consensus about how to treat Philip, we'll also have to change the Spanish Armada article to reflect that it was sent not just by the current King of Spain but by a former co-monarch (?) of England.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now listed over 30 sources which mention Philip as co-monarch, co-sovereign or co-ruler, or mention joint reign of Philip and Mary. I have only put sources which I consider reliable and credible and which concentrate on history, with many more left out. More are still coming (because I am tired of being accused for original research). Be aware that not mentioning Philip doesn't say anything about his status, let alone that he wasn't a co-monarch. About Spanish Armada article - this should certainly be mentioned and Eugene L. Rasor mentions his status as former monarch in his book about English naval history. Anyway, feel free to add your own source to the list. Surtsicna (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Encyclopedia Britannica says "In 1554 Philip married Mary I of England and became joint sovereign of England until Mary’s death, without issue, in 1558." Richard75 (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm impressed that we are neutral enough here to have Big Phil included. I suppose if William of Orange can be, its only right. Good job with the references. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I was going to make the attempt myself, but I was most assuredly going to be blocked or banned for it. It takes somebody with impeccable Wiki-credit to succeed where the mob misrule would cry for blood.  A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, where were the two of you when I was fighting this battle? Just joking, of course. Given how many historians consider Philip a co-monarch of England, we just had to include him. His position can't be compared to William III's, though. Surtsicna (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added a brief paragraph under Philip's entry to explain why he is on this list, as otherwise people might be confused, and they should not have to go to the talk page to find out. Richard75 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Other monarchs of uncertain or controversial status have an explanation about them, such as Matilda and Jane. Since Philip is the least well known to most people, I am sure that he, most of all, requires some text about why he is on the list, beyond a mere "status uncertain" in small font below his name. I have restored this, but if you think there is some reason why he should be treated differently from Jane Grey then plese explain it here. Richard75 (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Pope Innocent III
Seeing as this article inclusion criteria continues to expand, does this mean Pope Innocent III should be listed? Afterall, didn't King John surrender England to the Pope & then received it back as a fief? GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi GoodDay! Long time! I see what you mean, but Innocent gave the title and office back to John, retaining only overlordship. It was a controversial 'reign' as well. John's successors were understandably reluctant to acknowledge papal overlordship.And technically, it has never been formally disavowed! (which in part explains the horror of the English when the Roman Catholic episcopacy was reestablished in England in the nineteenth century) The popes also claimed to be feudal overlords of the Holy Roman Empire.--Gazzster (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * According to "John and the church of Rome" (by Harper-Bill), John offered to surrender the Kingdom of England to God and the Saints Peter and Paul. He did not surrender England to the pope. I guess it's similar to John IV of Portugal's decision to consecrate the Crown of Portugal to the Virgin Mary. He proclaimed her Queen of Portugal, so one could say that the Virgin Mary was a co-monarch of Portugal too. Yet she wasn't included in the numbering of Portuguese queens named Mary... Anyway, I don't think we should include God or Virgin Mary in any list of monarchs. Surtsicna (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie, gentlemen. GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In the same vein, what about Louis VIII? Wasn't he proclaimed and de facto King for almost a year during John's reign? Quite the discussion of the matter on that talk page.  See First Barons' War too.Li3crmp (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Supposedly, Ireland was held by the Pope, with the king of England a lieutenant, until Henry VIII or Philip, your pick. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually, Louis VIII probably should be there. It's mentioned as a possibility in the First Barons' War article User:Furius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.112.25 (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus, King of England 1649-1660
When the Stuarts were overthrown in 1649 the new regime declared that the only king of England was Jesus himself. So shouldn't he be listed as such? ðarkun coll 11:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not, it was just a religious slogan, not something to actually be taken seriously. The Commonwealth passed a law abolishing the monarchy, so they didn't really mean it. Richard75 (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then, why not distinguish the whole Supreme Head/Governor authority with the absolute submission to Jesus convention? I think it's very interesting to understand the way religion has played a part in what powers the government has assumed for itself.  That's my second opinion for you TharkunColl...Do you require a third?  A Merry Old Soul (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no 100% proof that such a person existed. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your atheism doesnt change the fact that there were/are laws regarding the establishment of religion, concerning Jesus of Nazareth. There's no 100% proof that your so and so relative in Quebec was really who you say he/she/they were, but I suppose we are at your mercy in what you know of them.  Much the same has been the case with Christ, whether you hate the Son or not, blasphemer.  A Merry Old Soul (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you go around belittling other people's beliefs, or lack of them (zero is a number too!) then you should not be surprised at how they treat yours! However it must be said that only little people "believe" things - particularly religious fairly stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.83.245 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally speaking I'm certainly no Christian, but if the law of the land stated that Jesus was its king, and immortal, then as far as the law was concerned, he was. ðarkun coll 08:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well this is Wikipedia and as such our knowledge is based on verifiability. Therefore, to begin to consider this, we would need sources that back up your extrapolation from one statement i.e. contemporary documents which agree with you and state that Jesus was King of England for this period, or historical documentation that Jesus acted as King at this time. Even then, we would need to consider the vast majority of sources which disagree with your claim, making this a fringe theory under wiki-guidelines. In particular, I would point you to: "Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it." So, we need these other sources which state that Jesus was King; at the moment your argument is original research as it is a synthesis of other material. Pretty Green (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's actually not that difficult to verify that is what a certain number of liberal English Christians in the English government believed and declared during the Commonwealth period--some number of such religious also continue to believe this, I believe that's the Jehovah's Witnesses, but unsure. I am unwilling to do the legwork, but since you broached the question, Tharky, why not you find it?  As to what Pretty Green stated, it may be best to simply put it into the Protectorate section as a note.  A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not even worth noting unless it was actually written into the law of the land, which ðarkuncoll didn't say they did. He just said they "declared" it, which is not the same as "enacted" it. Richard75 (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesus was 'never' King of England. During his 'supposed' lifetime, the Kingdom of England didn't exist & since England doesn't recognize a corpse as a reigning King... GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "No King but Jesus" did not mean that Jesus was king of England, but that, as King of the World, he was the only king they recognized. john k (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Religion, sheesh. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think, BTW, that Tharkun is being facetious. john k (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think, BTW, that Good is being trollish. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, that's hilarious. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Earlybritishkingdoms.com as a source
This is not a reliable source - I think it should be removed. Dougweller (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

House of Normandy
I find the introduction to this section very obscure and suggest that it be rewritten - I don't have the competence to do so myself though. - CamsterE (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC).


 * Done. Richard75 (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)