Talk:List of English monarchs/Archive 6

Former German solution
I see that some have considered the option of listing British monarchs along with their pre-Union predecessors. That would be useful, if nothing else, because it would show why William IV, Edward VII and Elizabeth II are not William I, Edward I and Elizabeth I respectively (and vice-versa, why Elizabeth I is not just Elizabeth, like Anne and John). de.wiki had an interesting solution to the issue, but it seems to have been discarded in favour of en.wiki's layout. See this version of their list of British monarchs. Surtsicna (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All solutions have their problems. I do not like the former German solution of showing English and Scottish monarchs together as it seems to imply a Whig view of history, as if the independent histories of the two countries were just a preparation for their eventual union. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate what they are trying to do, I am not too fond of the layout itself, particularly the way it implies a relationship between what were at the time two completely distinct kingdoms, simply because of a successional quirk 500 years later. Maybe a compromise - rather than merging them all, just begin the British page with a simple two-column list (not a full table) of monarchs of the two kingdoms, nothing more than Name (years), to provide context for the list of the combined entity. This may, however, open up a can of worms - were not some of the rulers of the Welsh principalities every bit as much monarchs of part of what became Britain as, say Kenneth I? and if we admit them, then how can we exclude Viking York, Strathclyde, Mercia, the Picts, etc. Agricolae (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why this need to overcomplicate everything? We can exclude them very easily, simply by saying that the list only covers the traditional list of monarchs of united England and Scotland.  I'd just add beyond that that, for a list of monarchs, the Union of Crowns seems more clearly significant to me than the Act of Union.  I don't see any reason at all why List of British monarchs should not start with James I. john k (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Because there is no logical reason for doing England and Scotland together but then leaving out all the others. As for why the Acts of Union are more significant than the personal union of the crowns, the answer is that until the Acts of Union created a new country, which the article clearly explains. Also there must be a reason the Germans stopped doing it in the way that is now proposed. Let's leave it as it is. Richard75 (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is the very logical reason that those are the two kingdoms that were joined together in 1707, and that the other states were small, ephemeral, and, with the exception of Wessex, not the immediate ancestors of the two main kingdoms. Furthermore, your "answer" as to why the Act of Union is more important to this list than the union of crowns is not, grammatically speaking, an answer.  I'm not sure it even rises to the level of tautology.  The Act of Union was incredibly important for Scotland.  It was not particularly important for English history.  Certainly nobody in England particularly thought that the Act of Union meant that England had ceased to exist as a state; they believed that the Act of Union was essentially the annexation of Scotland by England.  Which, indeed, it was, in all but name.  For over 200 years thereafter, the ruler of this "new" state continued to be universally referred to as the "King (or Queen) of England" and the state itself was often called "England" as a shorthand.  This usage - common in England, near universal outside the British Isles - only really came to be seen as "incorrect" during the present reign.  Splitting our list of English monarchs at 1707 is an anachronistic reification of the Act of Union to mean something that nobody at the time would have taken it to mean. john k (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

1) I meant to say "...the answer is that until the Acts of Union created a new country, England and Scotland continued to be two separate countries, which the article clearly explains." (I must have got distracted.) 2) By your logic the UK, Canada, Australia, Jamaica and the other Commonwealth realms are all one single country, just because they have the same monarch, which is obviously wrong. 3) Scotland nearly went its own way, with a different monarch to England, in 1689 after the Glorious Revolution. The permanent union of the two countries in 1707 was by no means inevitable in 1603, and for this article to imply otherwise would be a kind of Whig history, which we don't do. (Similarly your argument for why Wessex is different from the other pre-England kingdoms, which ignores Mercia's pre-eminence before Wessex.) 4) The fact that some ignorant people say "England" when they mean Great Britain or the United Kingdom is neither here not there: they are wrong and it is not "anachronistic" to say so. An encyclopedia should endeavour to be accurate, not pander to ignorance. Nobody is suggesting that England (or Scotland) ever ceased to exist as political entities, but they did cease to be independent nations in 1707 and you need look no further that the express terms of the Acts of Union to see that. In short, the need for a change has yet to be demonstrated. Richard75 (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Again, my point is that the Act of Union was not a particularly important event in English history. People at the time did not view the Act of Union as abolishing the Kingdom of England and creating a new state, but rather as annexing Scotland to the Kingdom of England and renaming England to Great Britain.  I'd say that this understanding of what happened is probably closer to the truth than the idea that a new state was created.  2) I don't believe this follows at all.  My point was that in a list of monarchs, the union of crowns is more important than the Act of Union.  I'd also note that we don't have lists of Canadian, Australian, and Jamaican monarchs.  3) Scotland did not have a different monarch to England in 1689.  Both kingdoms accepted William and Mary after James's departure from England.  What in the world are you referring to?  At any rate, I don't see how using 1603 rather than 1707 as the dividing point implies anything about inevitability.  It's a list.  Its purpose is to provide a convenient reference, not to teach people about constitutional history.  And the distinction between Wessex and the other kingdoms isn't that Wessex was more important, it's that Wessex is the direct ancestor of the Kingdom of England, to the point where there's no very clear dividing line between the two, which is not the case with any of the other kingdoms, including Mercia.  4) My point was not that "some ignorant people" referred to Great Britain as "England."  My point was that this was considered a perfectly correct short-hand, at least outside Scotland, until fairly recently.  This is not inevitably incorrect.  As a similar example, "Denmark" is typically used a a shorthand for the union between Denmark and Norway from the 16th to the early 19th centuries.  This is not incorrect - it's a convenient shorthand.  Similarly, until the mid-twentieth century, "England" was seen as a convenient shorthand for the united kingdom established in 1707 and expanded in 1801.  You wouldn't refer to places in Scotland or Ireland as being in England, but you might refer to the state as a whole as "England."  john k (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "We don't have lists of Canadian [...] monarchs" - unfortunately, we do. And also an even more pointless list of New Zealand monarchs. But I haven't the energy to try and get them deleted myself. Opera hat (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In response to John K — 1) That is a very Anglo-centric view of what happened, and I bet that all Scottish people would disagree with you. They would be right too, because the terms of the acts of union made it clear that this was not intended to be a mere annexation but a union of two co-equal partners (notwithstanding that Scotland was smaller in area and population). "[U]niversally referred to as the "King (or Queen) of England" -- I doubt it was universal in Scotland, and certainly not in official state documents or in diplomacy.  2) Let's pretend for now that there are no lists of Canadian etc monarchs on Wikipedia, despite what Opera Hat found out... I agree it makes no sense to have separate lists for each of those countries. But I suggest that the difference here is that they were colonies which later became independent, and so each new kingdom inherited a monarchy with the same person and same rules of succession as Britain. England and Scotland, on the other hand, ended up with the same person on their thrones by accident of birth, and joined together a century later, i.e. the opposite situation. But I may be splitting hairs here, so I will be interested to see what other people think.   3) I said "nearly." The point is that while it may seem to you to have been inevitable after 300 years' hindsight, it was not inevitable at the time. Scotland had to be bribed to go along with William and Mary's accession to the throne.   3½) I agree with you now about Wessex.   4) I don't think that an encyclopedia should use shorthand. People expect more accuracy than that from an encyclopedia. Richard75 (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All Scottish people live in a legalistic fantasy land? Just because you are Scottish does not mean that you cannot recognize that what happened in 1707 was practically the annexation of Scotland by England.  Many leading Scottish people at the time certainly did recognize this, which is why they strongly opposed the Act of Union.  And many Scottish nationalists today view the Act of union in the same light.  2) I'm not arguing against a separate list of Scottish monarchs.  I'm arguing that we should have one list that includes both post-union monarchs and pre-union british monarchs.  3) I don't see any reason why we should ignore 300 years of hindsight in deciding how to organize lists on Wikipedia.  4) I'm not saying we shouldn't explain the technical issues in the article, just that our organization of articles needn't be dictated by pedantry, so long as the pedantic distinctions are explained in the article. john k (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Charles the first did NOT reign until 1649...
...assuming that by "reign" we mean actually holding some level of power. Sure, if we go by English law then he reigned until 1649 according to the statutes passed after the Restoration, but according to those same statutes Charles II ascended the throne in 1649, not 1660 as the article says. Regarding Charles I a more sensible date for the end of his reign would be either 1642 (start of the civil war when Charles lost his power over half the country) or 1646 (end of the war when he lost all of his power completely). After that, from 1646-1649, the only power he held was being alive - moreover Parliament (and separately, Cromwell and the army) offered to restore him to the throne if he met certain conditions (e.g. establishing a puritan England) which he refused, and this would have made no sense had he still been the reigning king. So I suggest Charles I's reign as either 1625-1642 or 1625-1646. Thoughts? 101.114.113.127 (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well 1642 is out of the question since in your own argument you admit he still held power over half the country and was still commanding the Royalist forces. There is a case for 1646 if he was a prisoner or a fugitive from that time until his death. I would support a note to that effect. I would not support removing 1649 altogether because we need to avoid POV, and he still reigned until his death even though he did not rule, and of course Royalists did not recognise his usurpation -- in fact even the rebels did not get round to passing a law abolishing the monarchy until 1649, so on any view he reigned until then. But we were able to reach a compromise about the date of the start of his son's reign (see archives for discussion) and do something along the lines of what we did for Charles II would be ok. Let's get a consensus first though, otherwise it could lead to an edit war. Richard75 (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Royal coats of arms
I have added a coat of arms to Stephen, King of England. I thought it might look good. Because the queen consorts of england have their coats of arms next to them too! Maymichael2 (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think attributed arms that were invented after the king's death should be included. DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that statement of yours is dumb and unfair! Maymichael2 (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added coats of arms to kings, Henry II of England, Henry the Young King, Richard I of England and John, King of England. Maymichael2 (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have added coats of arms to kings, Henry IV of England, Henry V of England and Henry VI of England. Maymichael2 (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have added coats of arms to the Tudor kings! Maymichael2 (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I have just added coats of arms to the House of Stuart (restored)! Maymichael2 (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have just added coats of arms to the House of Stuart! Maymichael2 (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have just added coats of arms to the House of Plantagenet! Maymichael2 (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I will attempt to give Stephen, King of England his coat of arms! Maymichael2 (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Please don't, until you have achieved consensus on the talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright! But I don't know how! Besides, I have just added coats of arms to the House of Normandy. Maymichael2 (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Please don't edit war. To build consensus, you need to explain to other editors why your proposed changes are a good idea - i.e. why you think that adding coats of arms invented later in history to the tables is an improvement to the article. Try to keep the discussion rational and dispassionate; shouting that DrKiernan's views are "dumb and unfair", as you did above, was not very helpful. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

To add my opinion to this, I think the current arms that are shown are enough; the Wessex, Danish, Norman, and Blois arms don't need to be included as they aren't necessarily accurate (the people in question not necessarily having had arms in this manner). The page Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom lists Richard I of England as the first English monarch with arms and William I of Scotland as the first Scottish monarch with arms, and provides a basis for the arms of every monarch since them, although in the case of several monarchs they had multiple arms during their reigns (i.e. William III used one set of arms during the co-reign with his wife, and another after her death). It's silly to use arms that predate when the monarchs actually had arms. While we're on the issue of the arms, however, is anyone able to change the width of the columns so that they're not wider than the arms themselves? Psunshine87 (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

house of anjou plantagenet lancaster and york be combind into just plantgenets
they are all conserderd plantagents — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louder than words (talk • contribs) 00:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Monarchs took regnal numbers
The article currently states:
 * It was only from the reign of William and his descendants that monarchs took regnal numbers in the French fashion, though the earlier custom of distinguishing monarchs by nicknames did not die out by consequence.

That is a bold claim and needs a source, as I am not sure that the numbering was not something used for the convenience of academics rather than an adoption by the monarchs themselves. -- PBS (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed it because according to The Chronology of History compiled by Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas Henry VIII was the first English monarch to use a numeral in his personal style. DrKiernan (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

"Queen" Matilda?
A recent edit placed a citation needed template onto the paragraph about the Empress Matilda. I assume the citation is needed for the claim "She is rarely listed as a monarch of England" but I think it will be difficult to find something to prove that in one source. I was wondering what ideas people had for a reference for this, because I believe it's a true statement. Alison Weir's royal genealogy doesn't include Matilda, but then Weir isn't exactly a trusted historian. The only thing I can think of is perhaps that the royal.gov.uk website does not list Matilda as a monarch of England, and isn't shown as such on their family tree. It's a bit useless really and I'd like to know what others thought could be used to back up this statement. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look in her standard biography. The statement's essentially true, we just need to find a suitable cite for it. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A genealogy of monarchs of England in David Carpenter's "The Struggle For Mastery" does not denote her as a monarch; W.L Warren's "Henry II" does not denote her as a monarch. Either of them could be used as references I suppose. I can put in the references if you agree they're suitable. SamWilson989 (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Who should be listed as an “English monarch"?
Should English kings prior to Athelstan (r. 927-939) be included in the article "List of English monarchs"?

Argument
For some years, this list of kings was stable and started with Offa of Mercia (774–796), following the model of the official British Monarchy site. Information on kings prior to Athelstan was removed after a discussion among a small number of editors. A list like this should be modeled on similar lists that appear in published sources. Since we don’t have limitations with respect to space, our list can be more detailed than those that are published. We can also include appropriate disclaimers for kings whose status is in doubt, so determining who was really the first king of England is not directly relevant. But I will give my view on this matter anyway. If “England” implies Angles and Saxons united in a single nation, the logical place to start is Alfred the Great (871–899). He can be credited for uniting the two peoples, with his son Edward the Elder finishing the job soon after he died. Nobody on this list used the exact title “English monarch”, so the title the person held is obviously not the determining factor. Here is what some relevant sources say:


 * Mike Ashley has written a series of popular and well-reviewed books on the history of the monarchy, so he is certainly a leading authority on this subject. One of them is entitled A Brief History of British Kings and Queens: British Royal History from Alfred the Great to the Present (2003). Ashley puts Edward the Elder at the top of the list of English kings in The Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens (1998, p. 468).


 * Handbook of British Chronology (1996) by the Royal Historical Society is the only source I found that starts with Athelstan.

Alfred

 * "The kingdom of England was founded in 886 by Alfred the Great," according to The British Chronicles (2007) by David Hughes. Hughes' list of monarchs naturally starts with Alfred.


 * Alfred was "King over all England except for that part that was under Danish domination," according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’s entry for the year 900.


 * "By the 890s, Alfred's charters and coinage were referring to him as 'king of the English'." (BBC)

Egbert

 * Cawthorne's Kings and Queens of England (2009) and Hilliam's Kings, Queens, Bones & Bastards (2011), two recent popular works, both start with Egbert, so well before Alfred.


 * ”Egbert went on to attack East Anglia and Northumbria and unite the land that was England”, according to A Short History of England (2011) by Simon Jenkins (p. 26).


 * ”Because his domain included Cornwall, hitherto unconquered, it is fair to say that Egbert was the first king of all England,” Ashley, Mammoth Book. Greatness Bites (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Unsigned comment left by User:Greatness Bites at 12:43 on 23 September 2013.
 * The British GOVERNMENT has stated that Egbert was the first King of England., thus, we should defer to them, don'tcha think?


 * No, that's not how it works. Richard75 (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
It seems to me that there is a case for including people like Offa, Egbert and Alfred in a section dedicated to people who were king of England / the English before there was a settled English monarchy, as this article is the logical place for people to come and look for that information. It isn't enough just to link to List of kings of Wessex, because Offa was not king of Wessex but Mercia. We can have a short paragraph explaining that this was a temporary state of affairs that did not survive after the deaths of Egbert and Offa. Where Alfred is concerned, I don't object to him being on the list at all, as long as we make it clear that he did not rule in the Danelaw area, and that Athelstan was the first king to rule the whole of England (unless Edward was). Richard75 (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that as people expect to find these kings it would be helpful to explain why they are excluded. Second draft: "Offa of Mercia, Egbert of Wessex and Alfred the Great are sometimes described as kings of England by popular writers, but not by academic historians. In the late eighth century Offa achieved a dominance over southern England which did not survive his death. In 829 Egbert of Wessex conquered Mercia, but he soon lost control of it. In the late ninth century Alfred was overlord of western Mercia, but never ruled eastern and northern England, which was then the Danelaw. His son Edward the Elder conquered the eastern Danelaw, but Æthelstan became the first king to rule the whole of England when he conquered Northumbria in 927." Dudley Miles (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Maybe add some dates in brackets, but this paragraph is good. Richard75 (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it your contention that no academic historian has ever referred to Alfred or Egbert as kings of England? That's certainly a bold claim. I think John Eric's Reassessing Anglo-Saxon England (1996) might qualify as an academic history. He refers the Edward the Elder as a "king of England". Edward's army, as well as Alfred's, are both called "the English army," not the Wessex army. Who was the first king of England is a modern convention, not necessarily something academics are better qualified at determining. Greatness Bites (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never said that no academic has ever called them kings of England, I'm only saying that if they were not kings of all of England then we should be careful about calling them kings of England just because of what some academics call them. Certainly not all academics agree on this, since some name Athelstan as the first (because he was king of all England, unlike Alfred). It really boils down to what our definition of "king of England" is going to be for the purposes of this article. If that is not necessarily something academics are better qualified at determining, then Wikipedia's current definition (king of all England, not just England minus the Danelaw or Northumbria) would seem to be good enough. I do agree that the other candidates should be mentioned in the article though, and I like Dudley Miles's solution. Richard75 (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. - We've been through all this before, above: . Richard75 (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I have to wonder if you actually read what DM wrote, since it is both categorical and rather ORish on the issue of what academic historians say. As I explained in the nomination, I do not think that we should be determining who the first king of England was, developing our own criteria, or otherwise reinventing the wheel. The British Monarchy site, Ashley, and others have already created lists of monarchs that we can use as models. Our list should not leave stuff out that the RS treats as notable enough for inclusion. Greatness Bites (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I can read perfectly well thanks; try to be less of a dick. Also Ashley describes Alfred and Edward as kings of the West Saxons, and Athelstan as King of the English, the first king he applies that term to, so perhaps he doesn't help your case as much as you keep suggesting he does. Richard75 (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Plenty of sources call Athelstan king of the West Saxons as well, so I don't think that means much of anything. Edward is first on Ashley's list of English kings, and not on his list of West Saxon kings. Greatness Bites (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Alfred, from 886, controlled all of England not under Danish occupation, and styled himself King of the Anglo-Saxons. This was also true of Edward the Elder and Athelstan. It is clear that the list should begin with Alfred (if not earlier). It should also be noted that ruling all of England is not the sole criteria for inclusion in this list. If it were, there would be gaps during the 940s and 950s when Northumbria was ruled by Eric Bloodaxe and, later, when England was divided between Eadwig and Edgar, and similarly in 1016 when it was divided between Edmund Ironside and Cnut. ðarkun coll 18:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, if we want to get really technical, Cumbria wasn't incorporated into England until the time of William Rufus. Does this mean we should leave out all monarchs before him? ðarkun coll 18:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Those are fair points. As long as we agree on a standard to apply, state what it is in the article, and then apply it consistently, then that's fine. Richard75 (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It is true that historians are not unanimous on who was the first king of England. The online Dictionary of National Biography describes kings up to Æthelred I as kings of Wessex, Alfred and Edward the Elder as kings of the Anglo-Saxons, and kings from Æthelstan on as kings of England. A Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain describes kings up to Edmund I as kings of Wessex, and Eadred on as kings of the English (presumably reflecting the final defeat of Viking York in 954). Virtually no historian describes any king before Æthelstan as king of England, although there is bound to be the rare exception, such as Eric John cited above on Edward the Elder.

Cumbria in the tenth century was part of the British kingdom of Strathclyde and would not have been regarded by contemporaries as English. Lothian was then English but was lost later in the century to Scotland. The boundary between England and Scotland was not finally settled until the the late Middle Ages, but this does not mean that kings before then were not kings of England.

Not all kings after Æthelstan ruled all of England. Edmund and Eadred lost parts of it for large parts of their reigns. But the same applies to later kings such as Stephen and Charles I. Æthelstan is the first king to have ruled all England. He has the best claim to be regarded as first king of England, a view accepted by most historians, although some would put it later - none so far as I know earlier, with the possible exception of Eric John. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an "English monarch" list, not a "king of England" list. So we can add Alfred and Edward, and label them Anglo-Saxon kings. Egbert ruled all of England as well, but I still wouldn't count him as a king of England. I don't think it should matter that the boundaries of Alfred's kingdom were different than those of modern England. After all, Italy and Germany have gone through radical boundary changes, but we can still make king lists for them. I found another academic source:


 * Just in case you're wondering, Alfred's charter styles were Rex Anglorum et Saxonum, Anglorum Saxonum rex, and Angol Saxonum rex. Asser called him Angol Saxonum rex. Greatness Bites (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * With his massive overhaul of administration, economy, learning and defence, and, even more importantly, his deliberate policy of cultivating a unified English identity, Alfred is the founder of the state that we now call England. This list is a list of rulers of a state, not a territory. If it were the latter, then it would continue to the present day, since all rulers of Britain since 1707 have been, ipso facto, rulers of the territory of England. ðarkun coll 11:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I would agree to Alfred and Edward being added to the list (but nobody before Alfred), if we have a note somewhere to mention that the Danes occupied part of England during Alfred's reign. So then Dudley's paragraph could look something like this: "Offa of Mercia and Egbert of Wessex are sometimes described as kings of England by popular writers, but not by academic historians. In the late eighth century Offa achieved a dominance over southern England which did not survive his death. In 829 Egbert of Wessex conquered Mercia, but he soon lost control of it. In the late ninth century Alfred the Great was overlord of western Mercia, but never ruled eastern and northern England, which was then the Danelaw. His son Edward the Elder conquered the eastern Danelaw, but Æthelstan became the first king to rule the whole of England when he conquered Northumbria in 927." Then start the list at Alfred. Richard75 (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, we're closing in on consensus. The phrase, "not by academic historician" still sounds ORish to me. Even though they have each ruled enough territory to be considered kings of England, Offa's was an Angle kingdom while Egbert ruled a Saxon kingdom. Greatness Bites (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with that - let's start the list with Alfred. ðarkun coll 21:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added Alfred and Edward the Elder to the list, and mentioned Offa and Egbert in the lede. Any views as to whether we should include Ælfweard of Wessex after Edward? I found this edit as a precedent we might follow. Richard75 (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Were "double numbers" during the personal union official?
Like, for example "James VI & I", or are these numbers just used by historians, and if yes, which monarchs are commonly titled with "double numbers"? -- megA (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They weren't used together as doubles, except by historians. Rather, they used one number in England and the other number in Scotland. Richard75 (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Uniting the Tudor and Lancastrian Lineages?
"Edmund Tudor's son became king as Henry VII after defeating Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, ending the Wars of the Roses. King Henry married Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV, thereby uniting the Lancastrian and Tudor lineages."

If Henry VII was of the Tudor lineage and Elizabeth of York of the Yorkist (granddaughter of the Duke of York), how did their marriage unite the Lancastrian and Tudor lineages? Not saying it couldn't happen, but it's not clear to me how. Jackaroodave (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Lancastrians were extinct. Henry Tudor was their descendant and traced his claim through them, so he was the Lancastrian candidate for the throne. The marriage united claims rather than lineages. Surtsicna (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the text was meant to say "Lancastrian and Yorkist lineages" as nobody really cares about the Tudor lineage in and of itself. The Tudor lineage was only important because of the marriage of Owen Tudor and Catherine of France, and the later marriage of Edmund Tudor and Margaret Beaufort (a direct, albeit legitimised, descendant of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster). Through this link, the Beauforts and the Tudors were Lancastrians. – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  05:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to Add "Titular King of France" to Certain Monarchs
User: Surtsicna and I have been chatting over at Talk:Henry VI of England about the English claim to the French throne and he suggested that I discuss a topic on this thread since it spans all the rulers of England. I propose that all of the kings of England who reigned from January 1340 (when Edward III of England publicly proclaimed his pretension as King of France) to 1558 (when Mary I of England subsequently lost the Pale of Calais) should have a pretender box added to their succession box footers that notes their claim to the French throne. The reason I believe this specific period is important is because all of these monarchs held actual authority within a part of France as King of France. As soon as Edward III proclaimed his right to the throne, the Duchy of Guyenne became Anglo-French crown land. That duchy was held until 1453. Edward III also conquered the Calais in 1346 and that territory was held by the king under his title "King of France" until 1558. Throughout these two centuries, other lands were taken and lost but so long as the King of England held a single acre of French land, he was "King of France" somewhere. The Treaty of Brétigny in 1360 should have ended this entire pretension but because the treaty was never fulfilled and Edward never officially dropped the title of king, the claim to the French throne remains fluid through this period. And the Treaty of Troyes in 1420 reemphasised this status, making it legal as well as pretentious for at least the years 1422 to 1453 (which is why Henry VI is the only king with a "Disputed King of France" succession box rather than a "Titular" box).

I propose that the following English monarchs have appended a pretender succession box for their titular reigns in France (with accompanying proposed years): Edward III of England (1340 – 1377), Richard II of England (1377 – 1399), Henry IV of England (1399 – 1413), Henry V of England (1413 – 1422), Henry VI of England (1453 – 1471), Edward IV of England (1461 – 1483), Edward V of England (1483), Richard III of England (1483 – 1485), Henry VII of England (1485 – 1509), Henry VIII of England (1509 – 1547), Edward VI of England (1547 – 1553), and Mary I of England (1553 – 1558). An example of the box to be added for Henry IV looks like this:

The listing of the title "King of France" for monarch after 1558 is not relevant as the title had no actual power associated with it inside of France. It just became part of the titles held by the English monarchs until 1801. However, from 1340 until 1558, the title held some actual power, akin to the power the Latin Emperors had over Greece, and that title should appear on these pages to represent that claim. – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  05:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we have reliable sources that call them "pretenders" to the throne of France? I'm not sure its a term I've often seen applied to them, but happy to be corrected. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well the term "pretender" is a modern construct, much like the word "dynasty". Unless we consider them actual kings of France or disputed kings of France, the Template:s-tul is the best we've got, which would label the kings as "Titular". The "pretenders" header is what we generally use for cases of titular rulership. There's plenty of examples for it throughout Wikipedia. I'm not sure what alternative you are suggesting. The English kings certaintly did not consider themselves pretenders, while the Capetian kings certainly saw them as the equivalent of that. – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  07:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, it is a modern term, and personally I haven't seen modern historians using it about these individuals. On that basis, neither should we - it would be Original Research. The solution is fairly simple - we just don't add an additional box in, or design a new one that reflects how the reliable sources refer to them. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't really play the anachronism argument on Wikipedia or anywhere in history. Wikipedia abounds with anachronisms everywhere. Meanwhile, modern historians still use words such as "sovereignty", "nation", "divine right", "country", and so many others to describe situations that those words were not intended to describe. It isn't original research to use a modern term to describe a very real situation in the past. Just because the word "pretender" wasn't used doesn't mean what pretender means didn't exist back then. The Kings of England did claim the crown of France and if Wikipedians do not want to call them pretenders (which is the modern word we use to describe such people), then the only other option is to call them "King of France" with a comment mentioning that the title was disputed. I personally think using the standard Template:s-tul, which is used everywhere on Wikipedia for nobles and royals who claimed titles, is the best option. Whether Template:s-pre should be used in combination with it, or whether a different header should be used is a different issue. I can easily make a banner that reads "Titular Titles" or "Claimed Titles" if that would be preferred. In any case, this is not an original research debate and this is entirely about semantics. What term is the most appropriate to describe a person who ruled a tiny portion of a kingdom but claimed the entire thing. – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  08:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've mentioned anachronisms at all, Whaleyland, rather that we should use the language and concepts put forward by high-quality, reliable sources for our articles, in this case modern historians of the medieval period. I haven't seen evidence that they call these individuals "pretenders" in their books and articles - therefore, neither should we. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already agreed to your point. So the issue is, what term should we use instead? If "Pretender" doesn't work and isn't used by modern historians to discuss these monarchs and their claims to France, then what term have you found that they use? Claimant? Titular king? What has been your findings? – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  08:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Such boxes are largely duplicative because it is often the same person who is predecessor and successor for each title or office listed. There is no added value to piling on more and more boxes for each title that the individual held. One box for the main title is generally sufficient. I also share the concerns that this is giving more weight to a minor point than is justified. DrKiernan (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is often duplicative but I disagree that there is no added value. About half of these monarchs have no listed reference to their claim to France except in their small list of titles near the bottom of the page, and it is just buried in there without comment. I, for one, notice when there is a title, even a pretentious one, in the succession box. It makes it stand out and makes me think about it. And I definitely disagree that one box for the main title is generally sufficient. I am very appreciative to the people who work hard to make complex and thorough succession boxes and am quite glad that I call myself one of them. I know many people don't like them, but they have proven much more useful to me than sidebar infoboxes. The ridiculously large succession box for Winston Churchill may seem excessive, but it says summarises his tiles from the article well while also adding information that does not have a better place. I argue that adding s-boxes for these pretentious Kings of France would accomplish the same goal...even if duplicating the predecessors and successors of their other titles. – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  07:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not (yet) argue either for or against the proposal. I would only like to try to address the issue of redundancy raised by DrKiernan, as I too feel a seperate pretension box would be too much. This is a possible solution:



It is still duplicative, but a bit less so. Surtsicna (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support this option and it would address the "pretender"-term usage issue that User:Hchc2009 has brought up. It would also imply a bit more strongly that the title was not only a pretence, but actually had a tiny bit of weight behind it. – Darius von Whaleyland,  Great Khan   of the Barbarian Horde  13:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Stupid people
Although I think we have made it abundantly clear in three places in the article that this is a list of English monarchs, and that there is a separate list of British monarchs for post-1707, the feedback left for this page still consists mainly of negative people who came here looking for Elizabeth II or Victoria and then gave up. Is there anything else we can do that we haven't done already to make it more obvious? I am inclined to give up and say that stupid people deserve what they get, but am willing to consider some last-ditch effort if anyone can think of something. Richard75 (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Short of merging the two articles as I suggested, I think the only thing to do is state more explicitly at the start the remit of this article. I simplified the hatnote because I think its length and complexity essentially defeated the purpose of a hatnote, which is to direct users to the correct article quickly. DrKiernan (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Might also help to be explicit that what we call "England" is considered to have come into existence in 927. It is implied in the lede, but not really stated. Might even say something like "England, which is considered to have started in 927 with the conquering of Northumberland and continued as an independent entity until 1707 with its incorporation into the United Kingdom..." or something less inelegant... AS it stands, this crucial information is somewhat buried in the lede, it should be the first or second thing one reads. Canada Jack (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys, this looks much better now. Richard75 (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's nothing we can do, Richard75. Human Stupidity and laziness know no bounds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyandteaaddict (talk • contribs) 16:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Alfred first king?
The lede sentence is
 * "Traditionally, the Kingdom of England is usually considered to begin with Alfred the Great, King of Wessex, one of the petty kingdoms to rule a portion of modern England."

and the "is usually considered" bit was tagged with a "by whom?" tag (possibly rightly IMO, although I didn't do it). I tried messing around with wording a bit but was reverted (quite possibly rightly) on the grounds that I made a dog's breakfast of it. Fine, but now we still have the tagged sentence.

It's true that some people consider Alfred the first king. I have no problem with us stating something along the lines of "of the various people put forward, we in this article are starting with Alfred". However, I'm not happy with the "traditionally".

Does "traditionally" mean "something that is or was taught to schoolchildren, as American schoolchildren were taught that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree"? Or does it mean "Something that historians of past ages used to generally agree on, but modern historians don't"? Or is it something that uninformed people believe, or what? Because if its something that uninformed people assume because it is mindlessly taught to schoolchildren, I don't see es we should give it pride of place in the first sentence. In any case, "traditionally" is too vague and needs at the least to be replaced with something like "according to many prominent experts", with cites. Herostratus (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Good points. I've taken out "traditionally" as it's ambiguous, and inserted two sources (from the thread above). Richard75 (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Most literature I've read about this let the Kingdom of England begin with either Edgar (who was separately crowned at Bath as King of England, after having been King of Wessex, a millennial of which was celebrated about fourty years ago) or Athelstan who, although a King of Wessex was the first king to reign over about the whole of what is now England (something Alfred never accomplished). I'm not sure "usually" is appropriate. B.t.w. I was the one who placed the tag... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We can change "usually" to something else. But we've been though this all before in some detail: so let's not change anything in haste now. Richard75 (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh OK had not seen that RfC. As I said, we ourselves have to start the list somewhere. Even if we chose to start with Boudica, we must have a first entry on the list -- all lists perforce have a first entry. I have no problem with "This article starts with Alfred" or "For the purposes of this article we have begun the list with Alfred" or "From among the various persons claimed, we have chosen Alfred to begin the list" or any similar type wording. This is for our purposes and we should make that clear. We should not imply that he actually was the first king (necessarily) or that most experts hold this true (unless they do) or even that the man on the Clapham omnibus holds this true (unless he does), is all I'm saying. Herostratus (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like a sensible approach to me. I'm currently looking for some books I've read earlier and I'm reading that RfC. I'll be back! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Any of those wordings is fine by me. I think we have good reasons to start with Alfred. Whoever we start with, there will always be a history book somewhere which starts with someone else. Richard75 (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Reign Start Dates
A number of the reign dates on the biographies of the kings pages disagree with this list and with the historical sources that I can find. I've therefore presented some arguments for changing the biographies at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject English Royalty. The only reign which the sources disagree with this list for is that of King John who was crowned on the 27 May. --Jhood1 (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * His reign started before he was crowned. Richard75 (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Names in 'Native' Language
Giving French names to the Norman kings is an affectation. Yes, Normandy is now in France, but the Norman kings did not speak Modern French, the form of the names given. Why Jean sans Terre (Modern French) and not Johan sanz Terre (Norman French)? Why Guillaume (Modern French) and not Williame (the Old Norman form given on William II's page), or Willelm/Wilgelm, the forms on the Bayeux Tapestry? And for Harold Godwinson, you don't get Old English just by spelling a modern form with Old Enlgish letters, any more than you get Greek by spelling English words with Greek letters - the Old English patronymic form would have been Godƿining, not Godƿinson. Can someone explain this arbitrary set of choices? Agricolae (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't need them; let's delete them all. Richard75 (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of English monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.olivercromwell.org/faqs1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016193800/http://www.archontology.org/nations/england/commonwealth/cromwell2.php to http://www.archontology.org/nations/england/commonwealth/cromwell2.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of English monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015044930/http://www.parliament.uk/actofunion/ to http://www.parliament.uk/actofunion/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Arms of King Edward III
Hello, I have added the traditional three lions passant guardant in pale or armed and langued azure alongside the quartered arms to Edward's coat of arm's column to represent the considerable amount of time in which the traditional arms was used (1327-1340 & 1360-1369 according to this article. That's already 22 years!). Also, I made sure they were the same size of King Richard the Lionhearts's two arms just to provide consistency to the article. The quartered arms were not yet a staple of the English monarchy until the reigns of Edward's heirs when the claim to the throne was obviously going to be a long-lasting one. This can especially be proven with the 1360-1369 period since this period was a time of peace between the two kingdoms. Also many illustrations from the early half of the Hundred Years War show Edward with the traditional coat of arms such as this. Even if you can argue that images like these do not show an accurate representation of this time, it still shows that the general knowledge of the arms were still the traditional arms.--AngevinKnight1154 (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Regnal numbers
Regnal numbers weren't used until after the Norman Conquest. Don't use them for Anglo-Saxon kings. (We shouldn't use it for Edmund I either.) Richard75 (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Many kings after the Norman conquest did not use them either. Certainly no monarch who was first of his/her name used an ordinal. We should list monarchs whichever way they are commonly listed or referred to. Surtsicna (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well Edward the Martyr and Edmund Ironside are not commonly listed as Edward II and Edmund II, for instance. Richard75 (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right. I am not sure about the first Edmund, though. Surtsicna (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I support Richard75 and Surtsicna on this, however at the moment for practical reasons I say leave Edmund I alone as there is no better established disambiguation and just "Edmund" is potentially confusing. -- PBS (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to change reign dates
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject English Royalty Jhood1 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Jhood1 knows that Elizabeth II didn’t become queen on her coronation day. The proposal is explained at the above link. It’s about getting rid of anachronisms. Richard75 (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Which beginning dates should we use for English monarch reigns, pre-1547. The dates their predecessors died, the dates of their coronations, or avoid both. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is more complex than that GoodDay. This has been discussed already at the link at the top of the section. Academic consensus uses coronation dates until Henry III, then the day after until Edward V. No source for creating a rule starting with coronation has yet been found. WP:OR requires all content to be attributable. These dates are not. You can't create your own rule when that's not what the sources say. Jhood1 (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

has helpfully found a reliable source that differs from the academic sources. I've added all the reliable sources to the table so they can be compared: If anyone else has access to reliable sources then they could add them to this table so they can be discussed. Jhood1 (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Until, apparently, the reign of Edward I, no English king assumed the royal style before his coronation" Handbook of British Chronology p.30
 * "It is, therefore, correct to equate accession and coronation in the case of all kings from William I to Henry III." HBC p.31
 * "By 1307, quite clearly, political theory had made an advance towards the conception that the king never dies, for Edward II’s reign was assumed to begin on the day following his father’s death: and this conception, with some exception in times of revolution has been maintained ever since." HBC p.31
 * "The reign of Edward V was assumed to begin on the day of his father's death, and this rule has been invariably observed since the accession of Edward VI." HBC p.31
 * The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography follows the HBC in dating monarch's reigns.
 * Cheney's Handbook of Dates (2000) uses these reign dates as well.
 * A full list of sources I've found can be found at each monarch's talk page.
 * NB. These academic sources are not transcribing or listing regnal years. They are making judgements about when a reign began. EG. They record Charles II reign as beginning in 1660 although his regnal years started in 1649.
 * Amateur websites give unsourced different dates for some but not all reigns under discussion.
 * Wikipedians can't invent a rule that is not found in reliable sources. Jhood1 (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Use dates from reliable sources. It should be obvious, frankly. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As per Celia. Jhood1 seems to be following academic best practice for the Anglo-Norman kings. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Use dates from sources, as noted above. Where sources significantly differ, we can directly indicate that in the text as needed.  -- Jayron 32 16:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. But there should be a note (or several) in the text to indicate that until the reign of Henry III the reigns were considered to have begun at the coronation, not upon the death of the monarch, with a further "next day" note fro subsquent ones, etc. Canada Jack (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Going along with editing these monarch articles as though the English throne had been vacant for weeks, isn't my choice. However, I'll abide by whatever the result is of this Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW: Note today, that Main Page describes Henry VIII as becoming King of England on April 21, 1509, immediately upon the death of Henry VII. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Use academic convention, as per the above. There is no point in Wikipedia coming up with a new system; that would almost border on OR.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 05:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Jhood has made a persuasive case. I agree that we will need to explain in the body of the article how these dates are reckoned, or people will keep reverting them back to the dates of the deaths of the previous monarch. Out of the sources in the table above, I am inclined to say we should use the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography dates since they used expert contributors and editors. Their website says “The Dictionary offers concise, up-to-date biographies written by named, specialist authors. It is overseen by academic editors at Oxford University, UK, and published by Oxford University Press. The Oxford DNB's General Editor is Professor Sir David Cannadine. The Oxford DNB was first published in 2004 in print (60 vols.).” Richard75 (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Title disputed
Several entries are under "Title disputed" which begs the question by whom? For example Richard III's title was disrupted (by Henry Tudor and his army), but that is not listed as "title disputed". I think that post conquest and certainly after the dating of acts of parliament, it should be made clear that there are legally defined Regnal years of English monarchs, and that there are a number of pretenders, but they are not recognised by law. For example why list Lady Jane Grey as "Disputed claimant" and not the Old Pretender James? It seems to me that entries like Lady Jane Grey are included are there because it is "'heard it somewhere' pseudo information". -- PBS (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Kings like Richard III and Henries IV to VI aren’t listed that way because they actually ruled. No historian has ever denied that they were kings and they are always listed on lists of monarchs without comment. Lady Jane Grey, on the other hand, was proclaimed queen by the Privy Council and do she’s often (but not always) included in lists, but she was arrested almost immediately and convicted of treason, and it’s generally recognised that she wasn’t a real queen, hence her “disputed” status has to be acknowledged. But it’s more than just “we heard of her somewhere.” She’s regularly included in lists of kings and queens, not as a recognition of her status so much as to indicate chronologically where that episode belongs. It’s not just Wikipedia that does this. Richard75 (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing my point. Tagging a name as "disputed" or similar is not enough unless it is defined who disputes the reign (or includes it). If someone is "disputed" then by whom is relevant if one is to say "No historian has ever...", then one is defining it to historians not, as in the example of Richard III, by contemporaries (During periods like the War of the Roses may reigns were disputed. Henry VII had to deal with several pretenders. The Jacobites disputed the abdication of James II, and the Hanoverian assumption of the throne was by no means as certain as contemporary Whigs after the event maintained that it was). To say "they actually ruled" would not AFAICT exclude Lady Jane Grey and it could exclude Elizabeth II who reigns but it can be argued does not rule. Unless one uses the legal criteria (such as that as defined by the regal years acts of parliament were passed), or whether they were crowned and proclaimed or something else then it seems to me disputed is arbitrary, unless one list who disputes it and why. -- PBS (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's because historians cannot agree on whether or not the King or Queen in question should be counted as a legitimate King or Queen. It isn't whether or not their contemporaries considered them as such, it's whether or not reliable, academic historians do.  There are some persons which some historians have considered as legitimate monarchs, and which some have not.  That's what it means.  -- Jayron 32 13:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above "it should be made clear that there are legally defined Regnal years of English monarchs, and that there are a number of pretenders, but they are not recognised by law." Take Lady Jane Gray which historian considers her a legitimate monarch given there is no legal basis for it? -- PBS (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)