Talk:List of English monarchs/Archive 5

reliable source
hi. I love English history but most of what i know comes from Wikipedia, which (no offence) isn't exactly a source that gives me much authority. What is the best book about the English and British monarchs and what is the best book about British and English history in general? Please give me your opinions and I'll eenny meeny miney moe it.

- gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsnaith (talk • contribs) 05:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "The Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens" by Mike Ashley is probably the most informative. It has info on every monarch in the British Isles going back to pre-Roman times.Richard75 (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Claim to the throne
Is there anyone clever enough to add another column which briefly states the monarch's claim to the throne or how how they came to claim to the throne? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.11.66 (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be inadvisable. The article deals with monarchs, not monarchs-wannabes. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * GoodDay, I believe you have misunderstood the IP. He/she suggested explaining how the already listed monarchs came to the throne, eg. "conquest" for William I and Henry VII, "marriage contract" for Philip, "Third Succession Act" for Mary I and Elizabeth I, "Treaty of Wallingford" for Henry II, "usurpation" for Stephen (though this would be controversial), "Glorious Revolution" for William III and Mary II, etc. I believe this would be a great idea. Surtsicna (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, in that case, cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Something like this:

If nobody opposes, I'd like to include this column as it would be very useful (perhaps even more useful than some we already have). Surtsicna (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * These should be added to the List of Scottish monarchs, List of British monarchs and List of Irish monarchs articles, too. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Surtsicna (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added the column into entries about post-conquest monarchs but I'm having some problems with the entry about Henry VIII. The column can't span the entire entry. Can anyone fix it? Surtsicna (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to all involved! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.11.66 (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It'd be nice if someone could add this column for all rulers prior to the Norman Conquest as well. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Long list of Roman Emperors
Can anyone explain why this article contains a very long list of Roman Emperors? In what possible way could they be described as English monarchs? The list of English monarchs ends in 1707 on the grounds that the legal title King (or Queen) of England was discontinued then, so on what possible basis can the Roman Emperors be listed, as the concept of England, never mind King of England, was unknown to the Romans. It's a beautifully researched list, but surely it simply belongs on a different wikipedia page Bronxrichie (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect that it was a good faith edit, as Britain was part of the Roman Empire. However it does not follow that we need a list of Roman emperors here, and so they have been removed. Richard75 (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All part of WP:BRD. The editor boldly added the info and was reverted (twice) and I've suggested that he discuss this. To my way of thinking, that kind of major change to the list would require some consensus. And hand waving. -- Flyguy649 talk 22:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That kind of change would be insane. There is already an article on Roman emperors, and we could always have a link to that, but to duplicate it here would be nuts. Richard75 (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there was no England at the time of Roman rule, so it doesn't make sense to talk about Roman Emperors as ruling English monarchs. -- Flyguy649 talk 01:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

King Arthur
Why is there no mention of King Arthur? There is historical proof of his existance and unification of the peoples of England during his time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.7.201.91 (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fascinating, please cite some academic sources so we can read up on this. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

List Changes
All the monarchs mentioned before Athelstan didn't rule the entirety of England. Before his victory over Northumbria the Kingdom of England didn't actually exist. For this reason I think the list should be shortened so Athelstan appears first. Unsigned comment by 124.179.255.80 Would someone PLEASE alter the list so as to remove all monarchs previous to Athelstan. Perhaps another list should be made to incorporate kings of Kent and Wessex and so forth but they should not appear here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.162.65 (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was consensus against move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

List of English monarchs → List of English rulers — Since this list includes Lords Protector Oliver Cromwell and Richard Cromwell, who were not monarchs, should the article be retitled? An alternative name would be List of English heads of state--cf. Category:English heads of state (but that name could be confusing since that category includes regents as well as rulers). Goustien (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose, as this would upset the consistancy with related articles List of Scottish monarchs, List of Irish monarchs & List of British monarchs. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, for the reason given by GoodDay above. Instead, we should follow the example of the List of Scottish monarchs article, which has the Guardian of Scotland as a seperate article and just links to it, by removing the Lords Protectors from this article and just linking to Lord Protector instead. Richard75 (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support unless the editors decide to remove the Cromwells; they were not monarchs, so they have no place here. Therefore, I support the move if the Cromwells are going to remain on the list but oppose it if the Cromwells are going to be removed. I hope that's clear enough. Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Does it matter as long the point is brought through meaning the head of state of the country? Some monarchs had really no power during their reign and power were held in the hands of powerful nobles. We can have the Cromwells remain in the Irish and English list and include George Monck, 1st Duke of Albemarle as a ruler of Scotland during this same era.  Wait a minute, scratch that, the Cromwells were also rulers of Scotland too.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, I see no particular reason to change the title just because one might argue that the Cromwells were not monarchs. One could just as easily argue that Cromwell was, effectively, a monarch.  "Lord Protector" was at least a quasi-monarchical title, and it was recognized as such at the time.  john k (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Oliver was a monarch; he was not King. Thus the title is right as it stands. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The Cromwells were monarchs whose title was "Lord Protector". 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose The office of Lord Protector is usually seen as being de facto monarch, albeit without the title given republican sentiment among the army which led Cromwell to relucantly refuse the offer of the crown. See the article on crowned republics. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Why not just remove Cromwell from the list, seeing as he wasn't a monarch? The proposed new title is misleading as England has been a monarchy for a lot longer than the brief period it was a Protectorate. The name Lord before Protector was merely a courtesy title and did not convey nobility upon it's bearer who was a member of the landed gentry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Just better wording on the Cromwell entry should sort this.Metabaronic (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
If anything, the Cromwells should be deleted from this article, aswell as the Irish list. Follow the example at the Scottish list. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree; the Protectorate rulers should not be removed from this list as they were de facto monarchs. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How was Oliver Cromwell a de facto monarch?!!!! He was offered the Crown, and he politely declined as he opposed the principal of monarchy. The monarchy was abolished with the death of King Charles I and only restored with his son, Charles II. The Protectorate cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called a monarchy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See this book. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case he should be added to the list of pretenders.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? What throne did Cromwell claim, in your view? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This poll assumes that the Cromwells were not monarchs, but by any reaonable definition of the word monarch, they were (not all monarchs are kings). But in any case, almost all published lists of English kings and queens include them, so we're only following the sources. ðarkun coll 13:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that Cromwell ought to stay, but also agree he was not a monarch. Why not change the title to List of English rulers?--Gazzster (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For the reasons given above... Richard75 (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

For a related discussion, see Talk:List of British monarchs by longevity. A consistent decision should be made on these two requested moves. Goustien (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Æthelbald married his step mum?
I just think that's cool, that's all.86.161.169.224 (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Too much prose for a list article
This aricle is supposed to be a list. Other articles already deal with the history of the monarchy, such as Monarchy of the United Kingdom and History of the British Isles. These seems to be an inordinate amount of prose in the sections about the Normans, the Plantagenets, the Tudors and the Stuarts. Surely there only needs to be a couple of sentences, like there is for the other royal houses, and a link to the article for each house. I propose making extensive cuts. Richard75 (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Even the lead needs serious trimming. Surtsicna (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:LIST states that WP:LEAD still applies to list articles, so that's fine. It explains why the list is of the length it is, and where to go for other information. I'd leave that as it is. There's nothing preventing lists containing prose, indeed, I'd argue that the best lists contain explanatory prose to provide context. However, I can see how the intro sections to each house could be cut: I'd say no more than three or four lines, primarily explaining how the house gained power. --Pretty Green (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been over a week and nobody has dissented, so I have removed large chunks of text from the sections on the Normans, Plantaganets and Stuarts, and moved the last sentence of the article lead into a footnote. Richard75 (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Richard75, just a suggestion... What with all of the fanatical deletionism which seems to inundate Wikipedia, do you suppose that you could be big enough to reincorporate what was deleted, into the relevant articles? People do not like wasting efforts, you know? It's almost like your good intentions come off as vandalism, even though I understand that the page was glutted rather than terse and succinct. Per Pretty Green, neither what was there, (and per Surtsicna) nor what you brought to it, was out of order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.164 (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I know what you mean, from personal experience I know it's frustrating when your contribution is deleted or reverted, but the bottom line is that this article is a list. There are other articles which deal with the history of Britain or the history of the monarchy. This article had bloated to the point where it ceased to be a list and became something else. Richard75 (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why thank you for agreeing, so could you please agree to put that information elsewhere, instead of let it fall down some dark abyss? Thanks! 68.111.15.164 (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, this being a Wiki, the text is not in an abyss. It will live on forever in past revisions of the article such as this of 05:47, 13 July 2010. Easily copyable into other articles contexts if needs be. Pretty Green (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * actually, as more of a lay person (really, the general audience of Wiki..) in this area of history, I would actually find just a tad more text helpful in places. Yes, I know this is a list, but that does not mean milestones in the list should not be explained. I think much of this is already accomplished, so I am definitely a fan of keeping what's here. However, there are a few places where a minor note might clarify times when the succession veers away from straight king to son lineage. In specific, the succession of Elizabeth I comes to mind. There is not a clear explanation of why she succeeded other than her general claim, whereas there usually is some note in other "breaks". Yes she's still house of Tudor, but the grand drama of the Tudors, and her eventual succesion, might make for at least a reference point. IN a few other places, links to the articles regarding the major milestones might be an improvement. Other than that, great article, nicely done.Jbower47 (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

For those that don't consider Philip a monarch...
Remember Talk:List of English monarchs/Archive 4? I just encountered an interesting piece of information. "Anno secundo & tertio Philippi & Mariæ: actes made at a Parliament, begon and holden at Westminster, the xxi. daye of October, in the seconde and thyrde yeare of the reigne of our soueraygne lorde and lady Philip and Mary, by the grace of God, Kinge & Quene of England..." and many similar texts.

Why "second and third year of Philip and Mary"? Because it was the second for Philip and the third for Mary. Surtsicna (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

King Louis of France and England(c. 1215/1216)
Shouldn't He also be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.209 (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The article explains why he is not: "...in signing the Treaty of Lambeth he conceded that he had never been the legitimate king of England." Richard75 (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Retrospective de jure concessions cannot erase de facto realities. We still accept the Interregnum, even though, in retrospect, Charles II was considered to have been king since 1649.  I don't think Louis should be on the main list, but I think some sort of note of him should be included, if we're going to include Lady Jane Grey and Edgar ATheling. john k (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is already a note about him in the introduction to the "House of Plantagenet" section. If you are talking about giving him a full entry between John and Henry III in the way that we have done for Lady Jane Grey then I would not rule it out, but this has already been debated before at Talk:List of English monarchs/Archive 3, Talk:List of English monarchs/Archive 3 and Talk:List of English monarchs/Archive 3. Richard75 (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no reason not to include Louis the same way Matilda and Jane are included. The article also includes the Aetheling and the interregnum, and gives Charles II dates of 1649–85. It also lists Offa, who is rarely treated as a King of England, and all the kings of Wessex from Egbert on because they traditionally are. The text explains it all very well. The exclusion of Louis now appears as a real oddity. Another one: Ælfweard of Wessex. Is he any less to be included than the kings of Wessex between Egbert and Alfred? I would think he'd have a slightly better claim to inclusion. Srnec (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Louis possibly does deserve an entry just to be consistent in our approach. Let's give it a few more days to see if anyone wants to chip in beofre adding him – there was a lengthy debate about him in 2008 after all. I think though that Ælfweard has a weaker claim since the facts are in dispute. The case with all the other "dubious" monarchs is that the facts are well known and whether they were legitimate monarchs is a matter of interpretation, whereas with Ælfweard the sources don't agree about what happened. Richard75 (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Proposed entry on my sandbox, if there is a consensus. Richard75 (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well it's been six weeks or so and nobody has objected so I've added him. Richard75 (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Timeline
The timeline is wrong in at least the thirteenth century; it shows John reigning for longer than Henry III until close to 1300. Mr Peregrine (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC).


 * No it doesn't, John's time bar is to the left of his name, not below it. Richard75 (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Edmund I
There is seems to be a problem with his picture. Anyone know how to fix it? Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

William II's Sexuality
The claim that William Rufus (William II) is "almost assuredly homosexual" seems a bit preposterous to me. If I'm not mistaken, there is mention of what might be (if we don't get into any debate about the term "homosexuality") homosexual practices at his court, but also of heterosexual one in Orderic Vitalis. What are the other sources to support this? And why is William Rufus labeled "almost assuredly homosexual" while other kings about whom we find similar reports like Richard I are simply indicated as "unmarried"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.94.22.94 (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Offa
It's said in the article he was born in 747 and died in 796, in the age of 58. Doesn't really make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.224.189 (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Edward the Martyr
Why isn't he on this page? He should be right in that unexplained three-year gap between Edgar the Peaceable and Aethelred the Unready. Tad Lincoln (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. He was removed by a vandal on 28 February, along with the entire entry about the House of Mercia and Offa, and no-one noticed. I have put them back in. Thanks. Richard75 (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Charles II - 1649?
Why is Charles II's reign listed as starting in 1649? If one recognises this royalist POV, one must also recognise the Stuart Pretenders from 1688, because their situations are almost precisely equivalent. ðarkun coll 09:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Charles II's English reign began in 1660. The English monarchy was abolished upon Charles I's execution & only restored in 1660. I've made the appropiate corrections. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was because the abolition of the monarchy was not lawful and to only have the 1660 date was also POV, on the Parliamentarian side. It has been discussed before and the consensus was to include both dates, with some small note to explain why. It does not really matter whether we give precedence to the date 1649 or 1660, but we should stick to the consensus, so I am putting it back in. I can't remember if anybody thought of the comparison to the Stuart Pretenders the last time around, but I think that the dual date gets around the POV objections. Richard75 (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was here. Richard75 (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a list of people who were monarchs of England, not of those who "should" have been. Charles II was no more monarch before 1660 than James II was after 1688. ðarkun coll 23:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Legally he was. And following the Restoration, Parliament deemed 1660 to be the 11th year of his reign. Richard75 (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The law ruled that he was not. Parliament barred him from the succession.Gazzster (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't Parliament who did that, it was a minority of the House of Commons (after Pride's Purge expelled most of them), acting without the House of Lords and without Royal Assent. At the trial of the Regicides the court held that that was not really Parliament at all and the legislation it purported to pass was nothing of the kind. Consequently Charles II had been king all along, albeit in exile. For us to say he was not would be Commonwealth-POV. Richard75 (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Monarchists may retroactivate all they wish, but the fact is England abolished its monarchy in 1649 & didn't restore it 'til 1660. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I am going to have to leave it there for the moment, as I am going away for a fortnight and don't know when I will have Internet access. Richard75 (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If parliament passed a law now to say that, for example, Henry VIII was never legally king, this would not affect this list, for the simple reason that parliament cannot change the past. It is not "Commonwealth-POV" to say that Charles II was not the king between 1649 and 1660, but rather the fact that he was sitting in France with no control whatsoever over England, and was repudiated by the people who did control England. This is why he wasn't king. ðarkun coll 23:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * See today's examples: Michael isn't King of Romania, Constantine II isn't King of the Hellenies. Therefore, Charles II wasn't King of England from 1649 to 1660. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Or even Simeon II, Last Tsar of Bulgaria, deposed in 1946 only to make a comeback and be Prime Minister of Bulgaria from 2001 to 2005. Astonishing, but true. ðarkun coll 00:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, who would've thought it. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And he's a member of the same family as the Windsors, judging by his surname. ðarkun coll 00:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth II's & Simeon II's common ancesters-in-question Francis, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld & his wife Augusta. The UK monarch from Francis & Augusta's first son Ernest. The former Bulgarian monarch from Francis & Augusta's second son Ferdinand. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We can argue all we like about the legalities of the situation. But all the technicalities amount to nothing. Charles I could not reign without a head, and the only power in the land, Parliament, purged or not, had barred Charles II from the succession. Do we judge succession by dynastic succession or by the realities of political power? If the former, we must record that the legitimacy of the Fifth Republic is in doubt and that the descendant of Louis XVI is the legitimate King of France. We should note that Elizabeth II may not be the legitimate Queen, and that the descendant of James II & VIII is possibly the King of the UK (a Bavarian). We would get into the legitimacy of the resistance of Parliament to Charles I's tyranny and its right to depose and execute him as an enemy of the state (which he undoubtedly was).Gazzster (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference 96
Ref 96 is broken, can anyone figure out why? I've given up. Richard75 (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Richard75 (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Children
Do we really need these names? How are they relevant to these persons' monarchical status? Surtsicna (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's at least keep the article looking consistent anyway. Some sections have children under the "Marriage" column and some have their own column. Richard75 (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

File:EdtheCon.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Replaced with a new, sourced image. Richard75 (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Boudica
Would Boudica be considered an English or British queen during the Roman Conquest of Britain? If she is I believe she deserves to be mentioned as a Monarch. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, she was only queen of what is now Essex. Richard75 (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * She was British. Not English. ðarkun coll 00:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * She was neither, Britain not then being a country.Richard75 (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * She was most certainly British, and was referred to as such by all contemporary writers. ðarkun coll 16:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be a reference either to her ethnicity or to Britannia as a province of the Roman Empire. There was no British nation and therefore no such nationality. If we included all of her royal contemporaries then this article would bloat to ten times its current size. Richard75 (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting we include her (and in any case you're wrong about Essex, it was East Anglia). But if you think there was no such thing as a British nationality at the time, you are mistaken. ðarkun coll 01:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. Richard75 (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Before the Romans, the British were an autonmous people with a King and Queen. Boudica, I believe, represents that British or English independence. I suppose I would call her British since English I believe comes from the Angles who invaded Britain after the Romans retreated.  What I am suggesting is that she at least be mentioned, not as a monarch, but that she represented British Independence from the Romans and was considered royalty. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that the article should discuss people who did not rule the Kingdom of England. Surtsicna (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, although I would go further and delete all kings before Athelstan, with a link to the List of kings of Wessex, which duplicates the earlier entries in this list apart from Offa. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The point I was trying to make is that she was not queen of all of Britain, and can only be said to "represent British independence from the Romans" in a symbolic sense. She only ruled a part of Britain. There would be no reason to include her and exclude the scores of other kings and queens who ruled in the pre-Athelstan period. Richard75 (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am for editor concensus. Boudica did lead a rebellion against the Romans.  I would say that Boudica a Queen was autonomous royalty who fought for indenpendance from the Romans.  How were the indigenous people of Britain ruled before Roman conquest?  There is no mention of the Romans in the Article.  However, I understand that this article is meant to be a list.  I believe Queen Victoria acknowledged and emulated Boudica.  However, if other editors do not want to mention Boudica, that is fine. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The "Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens" by Mike Ashley (1998) says "When the Greek navigator Pytheas visited Britain in the fourth century BC and sailed around the island, he noted that it was a country of many kings. ... Ptolemy mentioned over thirty tribes in Britain. ... It would not be difficult to imagine Britain in the centuries before the Romans with up to a hundred kings ruling at once." (Pages 42-43.) The book then goes on to name 35 individuals (including Boudica) of whom some record survives from Roman times (plus 2 more who pre-date the Roman invasions). Boudica is described as "Queen of the Iceni" (page 77), who lived in East Anglia (but she sacked Colchester, which is why I mistakenly thought she ruled Essex). Four kings are named as having ruled other parts of Britain during her reign (59-61 AD). Richard75 (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe it would be good to mention the Ashley (1998) source in the article, since there were many Kings in England before Roman invasion. Queens apparently at that time had equal standings with Kings as in Boudica's reign.  This would give perpective in the article.  For example, when did Roman rule officially begin and end in Britain.  Also taken into consideration would be the invasion of the Vikings, and the Anglo and Saxon tribes. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it over the weekend. Richard75 (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Richard75. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I found a 2004 Ashley source: Ashley (2004), British kings & queens, p. 414  The book lists the Kings found during the pre Roman period.  Boudica may represent the last British or English Monarch to fall on the onset of Roman colonization.  The first rulers were identified by the Romans while during the invasion of Julius Caeser in 55 B.C.  There were 20 tribal kingdoms; the most powerful being the Catuvellaini, ruled by High King Caswallon.  The Welsh legend, apparently accurate,  mentions Beli Mawr as High King of the Silures.  I believe these rulers are signifigant to mention. After the Roman period the Saxon Kingdoms began sometime around the 450's.  Maybe there needs to be a paragraph section that mentions these early kingdoms, the Roman period, and the Saxon Kings. I don't mean a list of these Kings or anything in depth, but rather a brief historical perspective of British/English monarch history. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Boudica wasn't English. The first known English monarch in Britain was Hengist. ðarkun coll 16:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The List of British Monarchs states that the British Kings starts with the Stuarts. So the Stuarts are British and Henry the VIII is English.  My whole point is to give historical context. There were Kings and one Queen, Boudica, who ruled 20 Kingdoms in Pre-Roman and Roman history.    What then is the definition of England and Britain? Since the Romans conquered Britain, then, does Boutica and the other British Kings, pre-Roman, belong in the List of British Monarchs? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There are no articles on Pre-Roman British monarchs monarchs recorded during the Roman invasion or Welsh tradition or Post-Roman Saxon monarchs. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We could probably clear up the issue by distinguishing between Britain the kingdom post-1800 and Ancient Britain before England and Scotland. As this is a list article not more than a couple of sentences should be necessary here, perhaps with a link to another article(s). We can then add the actual monarchs to existing articles such as House of Wessex, which ought to have a list of Wessex kings in the same format as here. Boudica can be added to whichever article suits best, or if there is not already one then we can do a new list of Roman-era monarchs. Richard75 (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * List of legendary kings of Britain. ðarkun coll 18:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Boudica is not listed. The Romans kept first records. I am referring to the time period from 100 B.C. to around 100 A.D. There were no written records prior to the Roman conquest under Julius Caesar. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Richard75. Maybe two new articles can be written on the Ancient British Monarchs from 100 BC to 100 AD.  A second article could be on Saxon Monarchs of England from around 400 AD to 750 AD. The term "Ancient Britain" is an appropriate term for the Pre Roman time period.  I believe a fuller  history of Britain can be understood.  The article on Roman Britain covers the years between 0 AD to around 400+ B.C. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Philip
We have already been through the Philip issue before: Talk:List of English monarchs/Archive 4. The article is well referenced with sources (see footnotes 76 to 84). One website which isn't even by historians but is just PR doesn't outweigh all of these sources. Nor can a website represent the official view of the British government better than an Act of Parliament. Stop deleting this bit, unless you can provide a far, far more convincing source. Richard75 (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Judith
I deleted a reference to the annulment of Judith's marriage to Æthelbald as there are no sources for this, but the deletion was reversed with a reference to peerage.com. This is not an academic source and is not reliable. For example, it has two non-existent children of Æthelberht, one of them an obvious confusion with Æthelred's son Æthelwold, who disputed the throne with Edward the Elder.

There are two sources cited by historians for the marriage. Asser in his life of Alfred condemned the marriage, but did not say that it was annulled, which he would have done if he could. The Annals of St Bertin says that after Æthelbald died Judith sold her possessions and returned to her father. These sources are cited by Janet Nelson in the online DNB on Judith (in her article on Æthelwulf) and Keynes and Lapidge in their edition of Asser, and neither make any mention of an annulment. There is also no mention of an annulment in the DNB article on Æthelbald or the entry for Judith in the Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain by Ann Williams and other leading academic experts.

I have therefore again deleted the reference to an annulment. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Eleanor of Aquitaine
Shouldn't she be here? She was the de facto ruler of England for much of Richard I's reign.  Serendi pod ous  14:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a list of regents. Richard75 (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Ælfweard
I inserted a section for Ælfweard, but this was deleted by another editor. Historians now generally accept that he was declared king, although as I said in the footnote, they differ as to whether he was recognised as king of the whole of his father's kingdom or of Wessex only. Ann Williams in the Dictionary of Dark Age Britain says that he became king of Wessex, Sean Miller in the Blackwell Encylopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England that "Ælfweard succeeded" his father, Simon Keynes in the same book that Ælfweard was probably Wessex's candidate for king of the whole kingdom and Æthelstan Mercia's.

In addition the deletion was on the ground that Ælfweard was king of Wessex, not of England, but the kings before him were kings of Wessex or the Anglo-Saxons. Mercia was independent (apart from short periods of rule by Wessex) until the Danish invasion of 874, and Northumbria until its conquest by Æthelstan. The article lists English monarchs, not monarchs of England. Ælfweard has at least as good a claim to be included as some others in the list, such as Edgar Ætheling. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reverted to 29 March because I think TharkunColl threw the baby out with the bathwater when he deleted the sentence about Aelfweard that was already there (which said he may or may not have been king). However I left out Dudley's addition in case TC wants to make his case here for deleting it, to avoid an edit war. But I think Dudley makes a good point: unless we are going to delete every king between Offa and Athelstan, we can't leave out Aelfweard just for being king of Wessex. Richard75 (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

King Edmund murdered
I'm pretty sure that Edmund was murdered; his article -- and all the sources I have seen -- make it pretty clear that he was murdered by Leof. Unless there is a source which casts doubt on this story, I would be inclined to revert the edit removing his murder from this list. Richard75 (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He was stabbed in a brawl with Leofa, when he intervened to protect his seneschal, who was trying to expel Leofa. I think it should be called manslaughter rather than murder as Leofa was obviously deranged and did not know what he was doing. I do not like the word murder as it seems to me to wrongly put it on the same level as the deliberate killing of Edward the Martyr, but I am happy for you to restore it if you feel strongly. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll put killed or slain. Richard75 (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Article definition ?
Can someone please explain what the expression, "English monarchs" means? In the article it says, "This list of English monarchs and the term is highlighted to add emphasis but it is not remotely obvious what it means. I rather naively thought this page would list kings of England, but the first person on this list with a reasonable claim to be called the king of England is Æthelstan, the tenth man on the list. Offa, for example, was never anything other than a king of Mercia. On the other hand, if it means kings who reigned in England (to include king of Kent, king of Mercia, king of Wessex etc) then the list is missing a large number of kings; Cerdic, Cynric, Ceawlin, Ceol etc. So, what exactly is this supposed to be a list of?  Cottonshirt  τ   06:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * From what you're saying here, I take it that you don't need links to "English" or "monarch" at wiktionary and are asking about the validity of the first entries v/a/v the list you memorized in school. You seem not to have read the article. Offa's inclusion, e.g., is fully explained. Try again, then come back and address any inaccuracies or controversies that should be mentioned but aren't already. — LlywelynII  17:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Offa's inclusion is explained, but the explanation does not seem to me satisfactory. Why include him and not earlier Bretwaldas? Æthelred I never had any authority extending beyond Wessex. I would start with Æthelstan. There is an article List of monarchs of Wessex which ends with him. I would also delete (highly) dubious monarchs such as the Young Henry and Philip of Spain, although there is the problem that some of them have been the subject of long discussions on this talk page. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Offa's "inclusion" is not explained because user LlywelynII has made no attempt to answer the question that was asked. Can I suggest he please put aside his incorrect assumptions and try instead to answer the question that was asked. Thank you.  Cottonshirt  τ   21:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if the list starts with Athelstan, but let's not go back into debates that have already been done to death and resolved. Cottonshirt's question was about the scope of the article -- when should a list of English monarchs start? -- and has nothing to do with which kings belong on the list after England came into being. Richard75 (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to put too fine a point on it, but I not only attempted but did in fact answer your question. To wit, RTFA, which already describes in detail Offa's inclusion and even responds to those like Dudley who would good-naturedly deny his status. Inasmuch as I didn't write any of it, it has nothing to do with any assumptions of mine, correct or otherwise.


 * If you seriously needed it pasted here: "According to some sources the first ruler to assume the title Rex Anglorum is said to have been Offa in 774, who had been King of Mercia since 757, but this claim is based on charters apparently forged in the 10th century.[2][3] However, on some of his coins Offa describes himself as Of Rx A, believed to stand for Offa Rex Anglorum.[4] This probably had a different meaning at the time from what it acquired later, i.e. king of the Angles, and not necessarily the Saxons.[4] Several earlier kings are called rex anglorum or some variant in surviving sources: Aldfrith of Northumbria by Aldhelm; Æthelred of Mercia in Felix's Vita sancti Guthlaci (Life of Saint Guthlac); and Æthelbald of Mercia by Saint Boniface.[5] Regardless, Mercia's dominance did not survive Offa's death, and he has been considered by historians as being driven for personal power rather than nationhood."Sources included in the original. Now, to repeat myself, read that and then address any inaccuracies or controversies that should be mentioned but aren't already. It is good that you came here rather than blanking article content but, in the future, start out by reading the article yourself and refrain from personal attacks against those who already have and reference it in answering your questions. — LlywelynII  12:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If all we have (other than a forged charter) is that he called himself Rx A, that might just as well have meant King of the Angles, rather than King of the English (the same could be the case for using rex anglorum for other Mercian and Northumbrian kings). Is there any recent scholarly publication (along the lines of A biographical dictionary of dark age Britain) that would have such a list, upon which we could model ours? Otherwise I think we should start at least a century later. (AEfweard, Edgar, Young Henry, Louis and Philip are each unique questions distinct from this one, and should be discussed separately.) Agricolae (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just because the British educational system doesn't include him doesn't mean that Parliament didn't approve Philip's status and even pass lese-majeste statutes criminalizing denial of his sovereignty over England. In fact, he demands inclusion here precisely because he's typically (and unjustifiably) omitted from regnal lists. — LlywelynII  12:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Leaving aside disputed monarchs (sorry I raised the subject) the regnal lists in the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England show Æthelstan as first 'king of the English' from 927 when he "succeeded to the kingdom of the Northumbrians". (p. 514) Dudley Miles (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Having just read the article again, it seems very far from clear that Offa belongs on this list: we have a forged charter and a coin with an ambiguous engraving on it which falls well short of evidence that an English nation yet existed. Egbert and Alfred and the rest were kings of Wessex, and although Wessex was the dominant English kingdom they were not yet kings of England. Meanwhile the article on Æthelstan states -- with sources -- that Æthelstan was the first king of England. I suggest starting this list with Æthelstan, with a paragraph explaining that his Wessex predecessors often wielded influence beyond their kingdom's borders. And have Offa in a footnote. Richard75 (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If no one objects, I will alter the list to start with Æthelstan. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I object. For whatever reason, the traditional list of Kings of England begins with Egbert.  This list should as well.  It should make clear that the early rulers were not really "Kings of England," but it should still start with Egbert. john k (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but that does not make sense. If they are "not really 'Kings of England' " then they clearly don't belong in an article called "List of English monarchs." We should start with the first king of England and have a paragraph saying that he was one of a line of kings of Wessex going back to Egbert (and link to the Wessex kings article). Also it is not really encyclopaedic to slavishly follow tradition (which one anyway?) for no obvious reason. Richard75 (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It is older rather than traditional lists. My 1984 Whitaker's Almanac starts its list of English kings and queens with Egbert in 827 (why 827?). Lists by modern academic historians such as the Royal Historical Society's Handbook of British Chronology and the Blackwell Encyclopedia (see above) start with Æthelstan in 927. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the list should be both internally consistent with itself and consistent with the other Wikipedia articles on the individuals in this list. It seems pretty obvious that if Offa's own article does not say he was a king of England then he has no place on a list of English monarchs. I am neither a supporter of nor a detractor of claims that Offa was or was not a king of England, my only concern is that Wikipedia should be consistent with itself. Either his article should say he was a king of England, or he should be deleted from this list. If, for example, you go to the page of any later, uncontroversial king of England, say, William II of England, you will find at the bottom of the page an infobox called "English, Scottish and British monarchs" and that lists the first king of England as Alfred the Great. At least one of these lists has to be wrong. The first king of England can't be both Offa and Alfred the Great, it can only be one person. All lists in this encyclopedia claiming to be of the kings of England should start with the same guy. I'm not sure what part of that other editors struggle to comprehend.  Cottonshirt  τ   05:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We should try to get this list and the template list to agree with each other. I suggest that we keep this list as it is and try to get the template to start with Athelstan, here: Template talk:English, Scottish and British monarchs. Richard75 (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with John that many lists (such as the official website, Alison Weir's 1996 Britain's Royal Families, John E. Morby's 1989 Dynasties of the World, the comprehensive British Monarchs 1998 compiled by Mike Ashley, Collier's Encyclopedia, Everyman's Factfinder) start at Egbert, though there are sources (of the same date) that start at Athelstan (e.g. The Guinness Book of Answers, 1991, p. 696). I think there is a danger if you decide to select one source over another. You're favoring one or two sources that start at Athelstan over many, many other sources that start elsewhere. So, I'm inclined to agree with John on the basis that the majority of sources I've examined start at Egbert (regardless of publication date, but obviously excluding very old sources that often start at William I). DrKiernan (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not just a question of the number of sources on one side or the other. There ought to be a way of determining the difference between a king of England and a king of Wessex who is the overlord or bretwalda over some other kingdoms. At what point did England become an enduring nation instead of one man's personal empire? Certainly not during Offa's time, as even this article stated until a few days ago. We need to look at the sources and see if any of them explain why they chose Egbert or Athelstan as the first entry on their list. Richard75 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There isn't a cut off line to use. Hundreds of years in the future historians try to find historical boundaries but the fact is history just isn't like that. I suggest that every candidate for inclusion be presented here on the talk page, and then be included or not according to consensus.Gazzster (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, history is very often exactly like that. What's not usually like that is "what actually happened".  The gulf between history and what actually happened can be very wide.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  01:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The books cited by DrKiernan are by popular writers, but Wikipedia should be based on the views of modern academic historians. So far as I can discover, all modern historians regard kings up to Æthelred I as kings of Wessex. They are not unanimous on who was first king of England, but most opt for Æthelstan. The chief exceptions are Ann Williams in the 1991 Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain and Richard Fletcher in the 1989 Who's Who in Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon England, who style him as king of Wessex. The Royal Historical Society's 1986 Handbook of British Chronology has sections 'The Local rulers of Anglo-Saxon England to AD 927' and 'Kings of England 927-1066'. Richard Abels' 1998 Alfred the Great and Simon Keynes and Michael Lapidge in their edition 1983 of Asser have kings up to Edward the Elder as kings of Wessex, and kings from Æthelstan on as kings of England, although Keynes usually prefers the title king of the English. Pauline Stafford's 1997 Queen Emma & Queen Edith has kings up to Æthelred I as of Wessex and from Æthelstan king of England. She does not commit herself on Alfred and Edward. Sarah Foot's 2011 biography is called Æthelstan: The First King of England. These are all leading academic historians of Anglo-Saxon England, and their views give a strong case for Æthelstan and no case for any other candidate. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the reader feedback, I think there's a more important issue. Virtually all the comments say the list should be extended to include the British monarchs. DrKiernan (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A list of English monarchs has to end in 1707, but I have tried to make the continuation more obvious. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * List of English and British monarchs redirects here. The reader feedback indicates that this page should instead redirect there. DrKiernan (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have changed it to a disambig pointing to both. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that British monarchs after 1707 were usually still referred to in all but the most formal contexts as "King [or Queen] of England" until the early twentieth century, I don't think it's at all obvious that a list of English monarchs "has to" end in 1707. A single unified list from the early Wessex monarchs (whether Egbert or Athelstan) to Elizabeth II at some location seems like a very good idea. john k (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Harold Godwinson
Should Harold Godwinson be included under the House of Wessex? I don't see any evidence that he was related to Edward. Rojomoke (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a genealogical argument out there that he descends from AEthelred I, although this is dismissed by most historians as either the result of wishful thinking or simply irrelevant. They don't know what to do with Harold - it is not uncommmon, as we have done here, to make him an appendix to the House of Wessex, not for genealogical reasons but simply to avoid dealing with a 'House' that only has one member, just as it is not uncommon to see Stephen listed as one of the Norman monarchs, rather than having a House of Blois with only one member.  All of these 'Houses' in the sense that they imply male-line descent are more a phenomenon of Wikipedia over-categorization than a reflection of the groupings of monarchs made by historians (e.g. in Iberia, the Kings of Leon/Castile would consist of a single political family from Fernando I to Pedro the Cruel, even though the first three generations of that run are placed in a different genealogical 'House', and the first king of the Burgundian 'House' was no less a relative of the other lines of the same family than his predecessor was, simply because his predecessor happened to be his mother rather than his father. Agricolae (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Alfred
Shouldn't this list start with Alfred? He was the first "king of the Anglo-Saxons." I don't think there was anybody who used the exact title "English monarch," so I would assume this phrase is intended to encompass such variations as "king of the Anglo-Saxons", "king of the English", and "king of England." Alfred is part of the same Wessex line as Aethelstan, which I don't think should be broken based on a minor variation of title. Kauffner (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's more discussion on that in the section above: . DrKiernan (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The BBC seems to think Alfred was king of the English, and so does the UK monarchy site. Kauffner (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The decision to start with Æthelstan was taken after the discussion referenced by DrKiernan above because he is regarded by academic historians as the first king of England. It is partly a matter of his title, but mainly because he was the first king to rule all England including Northumbria, which had never before been controlled by a king of Wessex. The BBC site on Æthelstan describes him as "the first king of all England". Dudley Miles (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps the article can be retitled "kings of all England." I think a lot of readers will be surprised if Alfred isn't on the list. Alfred as king of England and founder of the monarchy is both the traditional and popular view. See Ashley's A Brief History of British Kings and Queens: British Royal History from Alfred the Great to the Present (2002). Cofton's The Kings and Queens of England (2007) is described as the story of the English monarchy beginning with "the reign of Alfred the Great - the first king of Wessex to call himself 'king of England'". Kauffner (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)