Talk:List of English monarchs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Should "Monarch" be capitalised or not? The title of the page disagrees with the running text in the page; they should be the same (default to what would normally be used in running text). -- Toby 06:40 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

OK, I moved to the lowercase following the running text. It's easy to move back if that's wrong; please fix the running text in that case as well. -- Toby 12:17 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

---

Removed all monarchs from 1707. There was no monarch of England after 1707. England ceased to be a kingdom and became a region of Great Britain (1707), then the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801), then the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland (1922). If the article was a List of Monarchs in England it might just about be OK to run the list to the present day, but there simply was no such thing as a Monarch of England after 1707. The full list is where it should be, in the List of British Monarchs, not English ones. ÉÍREman 01:37 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

I have added a list of post-1707 monarchs. Firstly because the various lists of subsequent British monarchs are split between different pages and in obscure places, and also because these people really were kings and queens of England, even if their titles said something different.TharkunColl 14:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Lady Jane Grey

She has been added in a footnote as in List of monarchs in Great Britain. Any comments about this leave them here.

Since she was proclaimed queen in a perfectly constitutional manner, there is no legitimate reason to exclude her from the main list. The fact that she was deposed only 9 days later is irrelevant. I have added her to the list with a footnote, along with a number of others who are sometimes excluded for equally dubious reasons.TharkunColl 17:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Conflicting Information

Thought someone would be interested to know that this list doesn't match the column for monarchs of England on the List_of_British_monarchs page. (The diffrence being that that page contains a reference to Matilda, whilst this page doesn't even contain a footnote mention of her. Discuss as you wish. — g026r 18:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Regnal numbers of pre-Conquest kings

I have removed all regnal numbers prior to William I because they are retrospective and in any case inconsistent, because of the Edwards. The Anglo-Saxons did not use regnal numbers. I have also tidied up some spelling and names.TharkunColl 10:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Post-1707 monarchs

My reasons for putting them back into the list are as follows: (1) - they really were monarchs of England, in addition to other places, and whatever they used as titles (be it noted that from 1604 - not 1707 - the monarchs had called themselves Kings of Great Britain). (2) the British monarchs page is extremely confusing and ill thought out, with its parallel lists and such. (3) people looking for a list of kings of England will probably want the whole list anyway.TharkunColl 13:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very clear on this subject: articles should do exactly what they say on the tin. If they do not cover everything that needs said, you link to articles that do. This one does link to articles that deal with the issues you raise.--Mais oui! 15:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally, and since England is part of the UK (in fact, the dominant part), for these monarchs to be excluded from the list is unjustified and misleading. Please have a look at List of Norwegian monarchs for a good example - it lists the kings even when Norway was part of the Union of Kalmar with its neighbours. TharkunColl 15:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The article should be redirected to List of British monarchs since it is a complete duplication of that list, although presented significantly worse. Astrotrain 18:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the other list is worse, and is presented quite badly and confusingly. I know of no other article (the Scandinavian ones, for example) in which monarchs are presented in parallel form, and by implying some sort of equality, it also significantly distorts the relationship between the two kingdoms of England and Scotland, in that for much of its history Scotland was a feudal vassal of England, and the Scottish king even sat in the English House of Lords. The list of English monarchs page presents the list as exactly what it says, namely, a simple list. TharkunColl 21:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because England was not always part of the UK doesn't mean that it isn't now. The UK is a continuation of the English state. Just because a country changes its name, or annexes another area, doesn't mean there is no essential continuity. Why are the kings of the Union of Kalmar listed as kings of Norway? Because they were kings of Norway. The title king of England was not useed after 1604 when James I adopted the title king of Great Britain, and, indeed, was not used before the time of king John (his predecessors called themselves "kings of the English", not "of England". Should they be excluded too? TharkunColl 23:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Although the name Great Britain was used after 1603, monarchs styled themselves "King(Queen) of England, Scotland, France and Ireland. If we go by your definition, then the English monarchy died in 1603, and was superceded by the Scottish monarchy. Astrotrain 18:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying here. From 1604 onwards all monarchs were styled of Great Britain (plus France, Ireland, etc. as separate titles). The last person to hold the titles King of Scotland, and King of England, was James VI/I. It has never been used since. So we should either cut the list off at that point, or bring it to the present. What happened in 1707 was the closure of the Scottish parliament with Scottish members admitted to the Westminster parliament - but even in the Middle Ages Scottish members were sometimes called to Westminster. 1707 did not affect the royal title. TharkunColl 18:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at Style of the British Sovereign, it details all the titles and styles from 1066 until the present day. King/Queen of Great Britain (plus France, Ireland, etc) was not used until 1707. Plus the wording of the Act of Union 1707 saw the demise of both Parliaments in England and Scotland, and the creation of a new Parliament of Great Britain. Astrotrain 19:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the article you cite is incorrect. If you don't believe me, look at the first page of the King James Bible (published 1611). As for the demise of both parliaments, whatever the legal niceties of the situation, it was the Westminster parliament, with all its traditions and practices that survived, not the Scottish one. TharkunColl 19:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Another reason for including post-1707 monarchs - or perhaps rather another reason for treating GB and the UK as 'successor states' of England and this in turn justifing inclusion of monarchs up to the present date - is that the primary numerals of the monarchs continue from the English list. So William IV is de facto/historically known as 'William IV', rather than William III (as he may have technically been for Scots). Another reason, it seems to me, for including them on the list is that the UK monarch is popularly thought of as the 'Queen of England'. This may be incomplete - but then so is the usuage 'Queen of the UK', since she is also monarch to other Commonwealth territories. Indeed, the only arguments the other way would seem to be the mere fact that the 1707 and 1801 Acts (i) extended the territorial reach of the Kingdom and (ii) officially renamed it. As to (i), the mere fact that the monarch reigns over other territories (eg Australia) does not prevent a list of *UK* monarchs, so why should it prevent a list of monarchs who have reigned over England for as long as it has as existed as a political/cultural entity? As to (ii), an encyclopedia, taking an objective approach, should not keel to a piece of national legislation that says 'what some people call X must be called Y'. Lots of people refer to the UK's (+ others') monarch as the Queen of England. They aren't simply wrong as the article in its present form seems to assume, and indeed goes out of its way to state: "but this is incorrect" and "technically incorrect (though still in wide usage)". I'm by no means some kind of langauage-anarchist. There are limits to common usuages of words being correct in the context. So the mere fact that lots of people think that New Zealand is a republic doesn't make a case for saying it is since you can't point to a New Zealand president. But I really struggle to understand why, beyond the *naming convention* suggested by a statute, why its incorrect to say that there is a queen of England. --Danward 01:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this totally. England still exists as a political entity with its own constitutional arrangements that differ from the rest of the UK - and indeed, it contains 83 percent of the population of the UK. Whatever legal fictions were invented in 1707 to appease the Scots, there is no doubt that in real terms what happend in that year was the annexation of Scotland by England. The Scottish parliament was dissolved, but the English parliament didn't even interrupt its sitting - all that happened was that a small group of appointed Scottish MPs turned up on 1st May and took their seats. All the English officers of state remained in office, and the English administration was hardly affected at all. If there are no objections in a few days I'll restore the post-1707 list. TharkunColl 14:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Renamed article

I have just renamed this article so as to avoid any ambiguity over which rulers to include. Hopefully this will clear up any need for further debates over nomenclature. TharkunColl 23:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved back. There is already an article on that topic. Work on that one if you like.--Mais oui! 23:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Without addressing any of the issues I've raised, you keep trying to cut the article up. I'll try and state it again, and hope to hear your response - England is part of the UK, therefore these people who reigned after 1707 are still monarchs of England! This is not changed by whatever titles they happened to have used (and if it were, we should exclude all monarchs from 1604, not 1707). TharkunColl 18:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You could use exactly the same argument to justify moving List of monarchs of Scotland to List of monarchs of Scotland and the UK. Morwen - Talk 19:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have no particular objection to that. It should be born in mind, however, that for all practical purposes (as opposed to legal technicalities) the UK is a continuation of the English state, following its annexation of Scotland. In any case, the name of the article has since been changed back. TharkunColl 19:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Justification for the list

This is addressed to Mais oui!, who seems intent on cutting up this article without bothering to offer any sort of justification. So, at the risk of repeating myself, here are my reasons, yet again, for keeping the article as it stands:

Since England is part of the UK, those people who reigned over the UK since 1707 are, therefore, monarchs of England! How can I state this any clearer? Whatever they happen to use as their title (i.e. Great Britain since 1604) the fact remains that they still reigned over England. Since this is supposed to be a list of monarchs of England, they should and must be included. TharkunColl 00:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because you fail to agree with Mais oui!'s reasoning doesn't mean that he hasn't offered any. Please acknowledge this as a legitimate dispute on his part. Morwen - Talk 09:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't addressed any of the issues I have raised, which is a pity, because I would welcome the chance to discuss them. TharkunColl 10:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Added - he has now changed the goalposts by renaming the article, and has still failed to offer any justification at all. This is tantamount to vandalism. TharkunColl 10:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The renaming is particularly annoying, as are the broken redirects that have been created. I don't see any especial reason not to list the monarchs of Great Britain and the UK here, because, as Tharkun notes, those states are a continuation of the Kingdom of England in a way that they are not a continuation of the Kingdoms of Scotland or Ireland. When England and Scotland merged, the offices of the two states were not merged. Rather, the English offices became offices for the new kingdom. The Lord Chancellor of England became the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain; the English Treasury became the British Treasury; and so forth. While, obviously, we should note that the later monarchs do not bear the title of "King of England", and that the state is no longer called England, but it seems counter-productive to force people to go to another page just because we don't want to offend sufferers of Pedantic Nationalism Syndrome. john k 17:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That being said, the article seems to have been just fine for a couple of years with no recent monarchs, and of course we have another article that includes them. I really think the article move was nonsense, but I wouldn't especially mind not including the later monarchs, on the basis that sleeping dogs should be let to lie. (On the other hand, this dog may no longer be sleeping...) john k 17:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've gone back to the old page from which the article was redirected - List of monarchs of England - put the old stuff back, and expanded it massively. I have chosen to view England as a term describing a geographical country, which I think is in keeping with how most other countries tend to list their historical rulers, regardless of when any specific "state" was formed. TharkunColl 17:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Saxe-Coburg-Gotha or Windsor?

This is the same family, and do not constitute separate dynasties. So which name to use? The current one seems best, i.e. Windsor. TharkunColl 12:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Although it may be the same family, it is not accurate to state that Edward VII was in the House of Windsor. The reader has to see an accurate list of monarchs, it is essential to state that the name changed to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha through Victoria's marriage to Prince Albert, and then state why it changed to House of Windsor. Astrotrain 13:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to go back through the list and add separate houses for all the other singlets? A house, in the context of a list like this, refers to a historical time period, rather than a precise family. In any case, when they changed the family name in 1917, they were in no way founding a new house. There was already a note at the head of the dynasty refering to this, which should surely be enough. TharkunColl 13:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Added - George V did not have two reigns, but your version lists him twice. Not even Edward IV, who did have two reigns, is presented thus. TharkunColl 13:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• The list needs to be accurate, the Royal House was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha between 1901 and 1917. Thus Edward VII and George V are listed here. As George V was also in the House of Windsor, he too listed in both headings. I am confused as to why you prefer an inaccurate version. Astrotrain 13:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to what I hope you'll accept to be a compromise. TharkunColl 13:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Conquest Kings

There's been plenty of debate about post-Union monarchs, but what about pre-10th century? England certainly did not exist then. Are we using England geographically? If so, we should include lists of all the kings of the various kingdoms. If not, the list should not start until Athelstan (who was first called king of England). I've had some of this debate with TharkunColl on the Bretwalda page. All this does is grossly and often incorrectly simplify a much more complicated situation. Unfortunately, history does not always fit into nice "lists".

Also, I'm very unhappy with the Roman section. Boudica was, at least if we accept Tactius, queen of the Iceni, and there were plenty of other contemporary kings. We don't actually know if they were seen as kings, as this is just the Roman representation of them. Further, are you really happy listing Roman governors under the title "monarchs of the Kingdom of England"? I repeat my comment at the end of the last paragraph.

One more moan... The Romano-Britons list is frankly absurd. Giving dates for the rule of king Arthur is absolutely ridiculous. Stating that there was "no central authority" between "reigns" suggests that there was central authority outside those periods. Could anyone actually provide me with some evidence for the dates given here? Or for central authority between c.400 and c.600.? Yet again, you're looking for continuity rather than accepting complexity, diversity and grey areas.

Apologies to those who wrote this, I certainly don't intend any offence. But we have to accept that you cannot go putting history into nice neat boxes, however much it might fit the structure of Wikipedia. Harthacanute 17:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

With regard to Boudica, she was recognised as leader of the revolt by a number of different tribes, not just her own. The monarchs, I believe, were called ri or rig, the Celtic word for king (cognate with Latin rex). This list is meant to show those individuals who ruled or reigned over the geofraphical entity we now call England, not the English state as such (there's a different article for that), and not the individual states within England, either. Its title was changed to its current cumbersome form as a result of a title change war, and has not yet been changed back. As for the Roman governors, they are not listed by name - it simply shows periods during which they were in power, and Britannia had no ruler of its own. TharkunColl 17:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if we're using England geographically then that's fine, though in that case there surely must be a case for recording all the kings of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, as they were never all under the hegemony of one overlord at any one time, and even if they were that does not mean they weren't independent (for instance, what about Deira during the reign of Aethelbert of Kent?). My point still stands that there's almost no evidence for the dates given on the Romano-British list. Harthacanute 17:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought there was a note indicating that the dates in the Romano-British section should be treated with caution? TharkunColl 17:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm more interested in where the dates came from in the first place. Any ideas? Harthacanute 17:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Those for which I am responsible came from the Vortigern Studies website. TharkunColl 18:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have the time to demonstrate here the many problems with the type of history Vortigern Studies is trying to do. I would simply recommend that you read the following academic, peer-reviewed works.

• D.N. Dumville, 'Sub-Roman Britain: History and Legend', History, 62, (1977), pp173-92
• D.N. Dumville, 'The Chronology of De Excidio Britanniae, Book 1', Gildas: New Approaches, ed. M. Lapidge and D. Dumville, (1984), pp61-84
• N.J. Higham, King Arthur: Myth-Making and History, (2002)

I'm not going to change anything, but I think trying to demonstrate continuity of central authority in south Britain from Claudius to (at the earliest) the 9th century is a bad idea and is only going to confuse readers. Harthacanute 21:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Several kings are listed as "the son of Edmund the Elder and Edgiva" - is it Edmund the Magnificent or Edward the Elder? both are listed as having a wife named Edgiva. I changed one, but realized afterward that I'm not sure which is which. Ten of Swords 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

pre-Germanic Britain

Those entries belong in a list for Wales, because Wales covered the territory now called England. I'm Germanic, not some Welsh nationalist. Please take what I say in consideration. 68.110.9.62 02:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What some want to do here is try to create some picture of central authority in what is now the geographic extent of England. I still think the idea is silly. For starters, there is almost no evidence for the names of the kings listed prior to Bede, let alone the dates that are given. Secondly, I doubt, as do many others, that there was central royal authority in this region across the period. Are we seriously suggesting that these almost mythical British kings should be seen as the central authority?

Just to use one example to blow a hole in this idea of continuity of rulership. Penda of Mercia was an extremely powerful ruler of Mercia, defeating both Edwin and Oswald of Northumbria. Yet Penda doesn't appear on this list? Why? It's because he doesn't fit into this nice pretty picture of continuous kingship that some are trying to portray. In trying to make this list, we are merely making the same gross simplification that Bede made. We should accept and appreciate the complexity of early medieval society rather than glossing over it.

My proposal here is that we DO see this list as a list of Monarchs of the Kingdom of England, and not England as a geographic entity. A link can then be made at the top of the page to the excellent Kings of Britain page which conveys well some of the complexity of the period.

Okay, I've made the changes on the line I suggested. I expect to come back and find it changed, but I do urge you to consider the benefits of this, especially in light of an already well-fleshed article at List of monarchs in the British Isles. Harthacanute 12:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Heptarchy of Britain under Bretwaldas was pre-England. You know, Royal.gov begins with Offa of Mercia. England is called England because of him and his people. Also, the Tudors technically were monarchs of England and Wales, not merely England. 68.110.9.62 06:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for making this a list of Kings of England

This page now seems to be the topic of something of a battle, so I think it'd be a good idea to make it clear here. This is my argument for why we shouldn't have England as a geographic region:

• There was no single ruler of the geographic region which is now known as England for much of the time prior to Athelstan. Though overlordship existed, kings of Mercia were not considered kings of Wessex, as an example.
• Trying to create a list of monarchs prior to the 10th century is a simplification of a more complex situation.
• This complex situation is already covered in List of monarchs in the British Isles
• Readers coming to this page will be confused, and may think that Edwin, for instance, was monarch of the Kingdom of England.
• If this page is based on geographic England, are you seriously suggesting that semi-mythical kings such as Arthur ruled much of it?
• What about kings of Cornwall? That's now part of England, and those aren't included. It is very doubtful that Edwin of Northumbria, for instance, was monarch in Cornwall.

These are my arguments for not including the "Romano-Britain" kings here

• The kings listed are all but mythical and there is very little source material. The only contemporary source is Gildas, who does not provide a very clear account. The rest is speculation. The main reason for including Arthur is that one king in the Y Gododdin is mentioned as being "not Arthur". Hardly a ringing endorsement for considering him monarch of England.
• It is very unlikely that there was central authority in Britain in this period. Although still under academic debate, one cannot help but highlight the discontinuity. The population reduced massively, there was probably considerable migration, the Celtic language disappeared in the east, farm land goes out of use, literary sources (i.e. Gildas) refer to a time of turmoil.

These are my arguments for making this a page about Kings of England (as a kingdom)

• The title is "List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England". Semantically, it is clear that the list of monarchs should be people who were kings and queens of England.
• When someone searches on Wikipedia for "Kings of England" they find this page. All the pre-10th century kings were not kings of England, and this will prove confusing.
• A page already exists for monarchs in the geographic region that conveys the situation far better than this one. If this page is geographic it is therefore superflurous. However, this is no page about Kings of England, which is what this one should be.

Hopefully I have made myself clear. I see absolutely no reason for this page to give some essentially incorrect list of monarchs of the Kingdom that is now known as England. It's just silly.

The only reason I can find given for doing this geographically is that other countries do it this way, as given by TharkunColl. Well, I'd point out again that a page exists for the British Isles. Also, I don't think anyone would be daft enough as to regard Vercingetorix as king of France, which is what some would see us do here. Harthacanute 20:24 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The title of the page was changed because of an edit war. It was originally "List of monarchs of England". No mention of "kingdom" anywhere. And which page are you referring to that treats England as a geographical entity? TharkunColl 21:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This article has been totally highjacked. There is absolutely no case for claiming the existence of England before the 9th century (at earliest), and it is an extremely well-sourced fact that England ceased to exist as a kingdom in 1707.--Mais oui! 21:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In what way are the overlords of England "bogus pseudo history"? TharkunColl 21:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Why don't you change the name to "Kings in England, and you could include these other people. Astrotrain 21:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• • No you couldn't. England did not exist before the 9th century, or 8th century if you really, really stretch it.--Mais oui! 22:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing a state with a country. England most certainly existed prior to the 8th century - during the Heptarchy. TharkunColl 22:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth are you including pre-Heptarchy rulers. Why is it correct to include pre-Athelstan rulers, and yet you have just vandalised the equivalent Scottish monarchs article, which starts with the very well-sourced Kenneth MacAlpin.--Mais oui! 22:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Keneth united the Scots and Picts. Strathclyde wasn't included till much later. TharkunColl 22:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Grow up. You are just trying to disrupt Wikipedia with unsourced polemic. I request that an Admin contributes to this.--Mais oui! 22:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It is your attitude that is childish - repeatedly refusing to enter into any debate on the nature of "state", "country", etc. (see above) TharkunColl 22:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I adopt the very sensible policy of Not Feeding Trolls. Feeding time is over.--Mais oui! 22:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If you won't enter into the debate, you must have already lost the argument. And childish name-calling won't help your case either. Who appointed you guardian of absolute truth? TharkunColl 22:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You have refused to even read the wikipedia policies that I provide links to on your User Talk. Please do so before continuing your strongly POV campaign.--Mais oui! 22:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I provided cites for everything I added - all of them Wikipedia articles. TharkunColl 22:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Lordy. You are not a quick learner, are you? Please, please, please read the links I gave you:

You cannot use Wikipedia as a source: see Wikipedia:Citing sources:

• "Wikipedia articles should not use other Wikipedia articles as sources." (their bold emphasis, not mine)

--Mais oui! 22:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Lordy, you really do think you know it all, don't you? Shall we delete all lists of monarchs of all countries then? They all refer back to the Wikipedia biographies of their monarchs. TharkunColl 22:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't read that WP:CITE page have you? Since you are so lazy, let me highlight the relevant section for you:

• Wikilinks are not a substitute for sources. (their bold emphasis, not mine)

Until you know at least some things, please desist from accusing others of being know-it-alls.--Mais oui! 22:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The List of monarchs of Scotland page has no sources cited at all, except other Wikipedia articles. I ask again: why are you enforcing your views differently for that page? TharkunColl 23:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Notice has been served at that article.--Mais oui! 23:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that Offa of Mercia held the title Rex Anglorum - or that his predecessor, Ethelbald of Mercia, called himself King of Britain? And he certainly wasn't the last Anglo-Saxon king to do that, either. TharkunColl 23:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine, add that info to the article, but please source it, and include qualifying information (ie. it is known that at no point was Ethelbald ever monarch of all-England, let alone all-Britain). By the way, just because somebody calls themselves something does not make it true: Idi Amin called himself the "King of Scotland". Needless to say, he was no such thing. Another related aside: MacAlpin was not the first monarch of both Picts and Scots: Fergus I of Dalriada holds that honour in 500, but he is not listed as the first monarch of Scotland in Wikipedia because no legitimate Source claims him as such.--Mais oui! 23:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was Caustantín of the Picts who first held both Dalriada and the Picts, in the late eighth century. Whilst true that Idi Amin claimed a title he had no right to, with Offa it was very different, because he really did rule England, and was recognised as doing so by Charlemagne, for example. Even earlier, Ethelbert of Kent in the sixth century was accorded the title King of the English by the pope. My point is this: states don't just come into existence fully formed - certainly not in the middle ages when the concept of state hardly existed - they always had long periods of development behind them. In England many national institutions existed long before unification under the West Saxons - not least a unified English church, with regular synods. TharkunColl 23:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Please improve and add to the existing article, explaining the evolution of the monarchy and the state of England, but please do so in an academic fashion, making it explicit how much de facto control pre-Athelstan monarchs had.

This article needs to make the critical role of Athelstan crystal clear, as the first de facto ruler of the whole of England. And please, please do not go adding in pre Anglo-Saxon rulers, nor post-Union rulers: this article is about England: other Wikipedia articles deal with Roman Britain and the post Union British monarchs. There is no room for romantic nationalism here at Wikipedia, except of course as a topic for an article.--Mais oui! 23:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary nastiness going on here. I tend to think that we shouldn't include early Anglo-Saxon rulers, and certainly not semi-legendary pre-Anglo-Saxon rulers. I do wonder, though, why our list doesn't, like most lists of this sort, begin with Egbert. john k 00:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Without wanting to break with the nature of this discussion too much (!) I'm actually going to refer to some source material. Athelstan is recorded in charters as "King of England". He was also the first Anglo-Saxon king to rule a territory roughly equivalent to what became England. It all fell to pieces a bit under his successors, and Edgar is important in pulling it back together again. Perhaps much of this could be resolved with an article on the nature of overlordship, say 600-899?

I'll add that there is a lot of unnecessary nastiness here, and it's not helping. I stated above my reasons for keeping this page as referring to Monarchs of England. The page I referred to dealing with the geographic element is List of monarchs in the British Isles. I suggest TharkunColl has a look at Kings of France and Kings of Spain for how best to deal with these issues of geography vs polity. Harthacanute 00:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My idea!

• Bretwalda's Heptarchy by Bede,
• followed by Offa of Mercia's England,
• followed by Tudor's England and Wales,
• followed by Stuart's Great Britain,
• followed by Hanover's Great Britain and Ireland,
• followed by Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
• followed by Windsor's Commonwealth of Nations...
• we'll probably see Mountbatten-Windsor's Anglosphere, but that's inappropriate to speculate on while the Queen is still alive right now. 68.110.9.62 04:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see where you're trying to go with this, but I think this it is already covered on the page List of monarchs in the British Isles. I have a thing about the words Bretwalda and Heptarchy (and Danelaw, which I'm glad hasn't come up). Neither of them fully convey the institutions of the time. Also, Offa was never king of England. The nearest he got was "Rex Anglorum", and he didn't rule kingdoms such as Wessex, though he was dominant for a while. I think, as I've said above, that this should be a page about the peple who were monarchs of the Kingdom of England. There are pages elsewhere for kings of the other things. Harthacanute 09:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Royal.gov says Offa was 1st King of England! Any other listing I would consider to be misleading. 68.110.9.62 14:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, although Offa is listed there as the first king of the English. Part of the problem lies in that it was more common prior to the 10th century for a king's rule to be over a people, rather than a geographic region - hence Offa is King of the English rather than King of England. West Saxon kings such as Egbert and Aethelwulf are also listed though, and I think it's doubtful whether they would count as kings of England. It's looking increasingly to me that some page on Early English Kings or something might not be out of place - what do people think? There are already lists of kings of the various kingdoms, but no article dealing with how these kingdoms related. Harthacanute 22:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Your logic of ruling over a people would be more applicable to the reigns of the Bretwalda era, comparable to the Merovingians. Since Offa and Charlemagne however, the constitutional basis has been of land and people together. I guess the states of Merovingian Franks were akin to Bretwalda Angles, for instance. There was a real diversity in that era, but it changed just before and prompted the Vikings to begin pirating. 68.110.9.62 14:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of Wedmore

I'm posting this here as it affects this page. I think the article on the Treaty of Wedmore is confused with the Alfred-Guthrum treaty. See my comments on its discussion page. As an aside, neither the Treaty of Wedmore nor the Alfred-Guthrum treaty contained terms that made Alfred "de jure leader of all free Englishmen". Harthacanute 22:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The difference between Alfred and the Danes, was that Alfred's rule extended to areas outside the Danelaw...like Schleswig-Holstein as compared with Denmark. The Danelaw was merely a legal district, not a separate country. It's more like rival factions of a civil war. Alfred was by no means the first King of England, just the de facto and de jure ruler left independent of Danish influence. Offa was first King of England, while the Heptarchy was overlorded by the Bretwaldas of Bede before that. Read the Venerable Bede before coming to judgement and please, refrain from historical revisionism. It's best to see it from a contemporary viewpoint, which Bede offers in abundance. There was no de facto difference between the four regions of England since Offa; rival kings were merely rival capitals, in England as well as Denmark for that time. One cannot argue that the four provinces of Ireland were different from Meath's High King at Tara. 68.110.9.62 06:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm quite familiar with Bede. Yet Bede should not be relied upon completely. What other evidence is there, for instance, of Aelle of Sussex? Why is it that Penda, who defeat Edwin and Oswald, is not included in Bede's list? Bede's Northumbria influence clearly comes in here. I suggest you return to Bede and find where he used the term "Bretwalda". The word is a late-9th-century West Saxon invention, designed perhaps to suggest that the Kings of Wessex were inheritors of some system of overlordship. We have no evidence of the word Heptarchy before Henry of Huntingdon. Sometimes kingdoms beyond the "Heptarchy" were ruled by kings from within; sometimes some kingdoms in the "Heptarchy" were not ruled by other kings within. Take Aethelbert of Kent who did not rule Northumbria, or Edwin of Northumbria who did not rule Kent. I think the term is not helpful in descirbing the relationships between kingdoms in the early Anglo-Saxon period.

And yes, I entirely agree about the Danelaw being a legal district and not a separate country. And yes, Alfred was not the first King of England, or at least we have no evidence that he called himself that. The first king to have that title in charters is Athelstan. Part of the reason I'm going to change the Treaty of Wedmore is because it currently gives a very poor impression of the period.

Not sure what you mean by Alfred being the de jure and de facto rule left independent of Danish influence. Alfred was increasingly recognised as king in western Mercia (see charters), and we can probably assume that Guthrum accepted Alfred's dominance, though we cannot be certain of that.

If we count Offa as first king of England, then we do so on our terms, not his. The nearest he got to taking the title was "Rex Anglorum" (King of the English). We do not know if Offa had direct rule over Northumbria. He married a West Saxon, but it is very unlikely he ruled in Wessex.

And I'm afraid I'm completely lost by "[t]here was no de facto difference between the four regions of England since Offa; rival kings were merely rival capitals, in England as well as Denmark for that time." Perhaps you could explain this further. Apologies for writing so much on what is already a laden page. By the way, I don't think what I'm saying is revisionist. It's certainly the line taken by the majority of current academics on the subject. Harthacanute 10:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In medieval terms Rex Anglorum (King of the English) is exactly the same as saying Rex Anglie (King of England) - if it were not so, we would have to list King John as the first "King of England", and all of his predecessors as "Kings of the English". It is simply linguistic fashion. And Alfred did indeed call himself Rex Anglorum - according to this page at the Archontology website [1] it was when Alfred captured London from the Danes in 886 that he assumed the titles "King of the Anglo-Saxons" and "King of the English and Saxons". Prior to this he had styled himself "King of the Saxons". By calling himself "King of the English" (Rex Anglorum) he was presumably deliberately hearking back to the days of Offa, and to have done so after capturing London must surely be significant, as London had always and traditionally been a Mercian town. What we have here is a deliberate attempt on his part to unite the Mercians and West Saxons, between whom there had been a long history of rivalry and mistrust. After capturing London he handed it over to Ethelred, his Mercian deputy, to whom he also gave his daughter in marriage. Even though, by the end of his life, half of England was still under Danish occupation, those areas that were controlled by the English all recognised Alfred as lord, and he claimed jurisdiction over all Englishmen (as is evident from the titles he adopted). It is with Alfred that we witness a fundamental change in the English view of government, which from his time onwards always strove for unity under a single monarch (even if, at times, reality fell short of this ideal). Who was the first King of England (or, as contemporary usage prefered, King of the English)? Offa was the first person to use that title, and Alfred was the next - nearly a hundred years later. Offa achieved his dominance by brutality, and was generally hated in the other kingdoms. He once, for example, invited the King of East Anglia to Mercia on a "state visit", and when he arrived simply had him killed. Yet there is no doubt that Offa's legacy was enormous - Mercian overlordship of England for two centuries paved the way for the English state. TharkunColl 11:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Added - incidentally, I always assumed that the word Heptarchy referred to the period, and said nothing about the system of government. It literally means "rule by seven", and although there were never really exactly seven kingdoms, it is still a convenient shorthand. TharkunColl 11:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'd essentially agree with most of that. As said previously, part of the problem is that in the earlier period kings were rulers of peoples, rather than of kingdoms (see Yorke, B., 'Anglo-Saxon Gentes and Regna', Regna and Gentes, ed. Hans-Werner Goetz et al, (2003)). I believe I am correct in saying that Athelstan was the first king to be referred to as king of "Engla Lond". I'd agree about Alfred hearking back to Offa; he does this in his law codes. The list of Bretwaldas in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle can be seen in the same way: an act by the West Saxons to give them some legitimacy in ruling beyond Wessex. However, we need to be careful to see kings like Offa on their own terms, rather than on West Saxon terms. For instance, I believe the brutality bit about the King of East Anglia comes from the West Saxon Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

You seem to be following Frank Stenton on Offa, who was of course one of the greatest Anglo-Saxon historians. One problem, however, is that he approaches Anglo-Saxon history teleologically, looking for things that set England on the way to unification. This is my concern with Offa. While he had direct rule over a larger kingdom than any Anglo-Saxon ruler before Athelstan, we should take care in seeing him as one more step on the road to unification. I suggest looking at Wormald, 'The Making of England', History Today, (1995) on "the myths and realities of unification in Anglo-Saxon England". Let's not forget that the rulers of Mercia under Wessex (say from Ethelred and Aethelflaed) created a new shire structure shaped on the West Saxon burh system, and so the development of England was based at least as much in West Saxon (and Ottonian for that matter) precedent as it was in Mercian.

Either way, I'd be happy for kings from Alfred to be included in this list provided some of the complexities of the sitation were made clear. As for Offa, I think he could be included, but I don't think the kings of Mercia should just be pre-fixed to the Kings of Wessex - it's not that simple. Harthacanute 13:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. London hadn't always been a Mercian town. It had been part of Essex and captured by Mercia in (I think) the 8th century. Harthacanute 13:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S. Sorry! Having looked again, I think the position of Offa and Mercia are conveyed quite well in the introduction to this page. So maybe leaving that and starting the list from Alfred (i.e. as it is now) is best. Harthacanute 13:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There were no separate peoples of England during the post-Offa era, except partially when the Danelaw was in effect. You are looking for pluralism of the state where it technically did not exist, as one would do when looking for separate peoples in Ard Ri ruled Eire. Could you prove that Ireland and England were so different? Besides, if you are so concerned about Mercia and Wessex not being included in with the Bretwaldas, just look at their succession on those heels by adopting the title Rex Anglorum. No doubt, there was a relatively understood degree of ethnocentric partisanry between differently named tribes of England: At the time of the Danelaw; Saxons of Wessex, Angles of Mercia, Jutes of East Anglia(the newer wave) and Danes of Northumbria happened to be the way of things. There were also Norwegians on the Isle of Man. This did not mean these were sufficiently separate to consider ethnostates, except that the Isle of Man of course, was held by Norway. Another example is Carolingian France(Emperors), which was all of one country(as with Rex Anglorum) unlike their Merovingian forebears who were the peers of the Bretwaldas. There are always such parallels with the French. Please be happy with it; your propaganda about Bede holds no water. When has Northumbria been in any position to dictate or promote its own venue since three Bretwaldas, long before Wessex? It's postulated that Sweyn Forkbeard's family through Gorm the Old, was descended from Guthrum of East Anglia. If there is any propaganda about the nature of English kingship, it is entirely biased in favour of a Wessex and Norman image to the detriment of the Danelaw and sometimes even the non-Danelaw Mercians...You'll find no conspiracy worth holding onto here, except that of extricating the Danelaw peoples from a eugenicist's Anglo-Saxonist paradise. That is partly why Sweyn Estridsen and Canute the Holy never got anywhere, especially due to their Swedish blood from Ragnar Lodbrok. 68.110.9.62 13:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confusing ethnicity and kingship here. I'm afraid I don't know enough about Ireland to comment on its situation, but in the case of Wales we have a number of kingdoms which were ethnically linked but were quite separate political units. This was the case with the Anglo-Saxons. We know that there was some recognition of common identity - Bede wrote his history of the 'English People' (gentis Anglorum) after all. One cannot infer political unity from common identity, though.

I'm really quite confused as to your four way split "Saxons of Wessex, Angles of Mercia, Jutes of East Anglia(the newer wave) and Danes of Northumbria". I think the situation was much more complicated than this. What's your source? For instance, there were still Angles living in the Danelaw, and the extent of the numbers of settling Danes is the matter of much academic dispute. I certainly would not wish to play down the important impact the Danes had on England, in terms of culture, language, politics, place-names, law etc. Also, the West Saxons were ruling the Angles of Mercia by the 10th century.

On France. The Carolingian empire was a different kettle of fish to 'Rex Anglorum'. Charlemagne, as one example, ruled numerous different peoples of different ethnic backgrounds. That is one reason why he was considered an emperor. I agree that there are often parallels to be drawn between Britain, Ireland and the continent, but parallel does not rule out local idiosyncracy, and just because something was one way on the continent does not necessarily mean it was the same in Britain.

On Bede. The Historia Ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum was written to "The Most Glorious King Ceolwulf", a Northumbrian king. Bede overlooks the extent of Mercian power in the 7th century. I happen to think Bede is one of the most reliable of medieval authors, but we should never take a text purely at face value.

Your point about seeing Anglo-Saxon history through the eyes of Wessex is very important. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gives us a very one-sided account of the Danelaw. However, I don't think modern historians are on some such crusade, and if they are then they don't deserve to be called historians. Harthacanute 14:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've rewritten the Treaty of Wedmore article (a post on which started this debate!). I'll be changing the information on this article accordingly. Harthacanute 14:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If there's a common English people, then there is a common English kingdom(as in France). The quartering is due to the invading rulers of each region in the time of Alfred and lasted until the Wessex Restoration. In the case of Bretwaldas being contemporary to Merovingians and Rex Anglorums being contemporary to Carolingians, it is an absolutely relevant contextual comparison. Respected scholars and university people have been relying upon Bede as much as the Bible is relied upon in Church, so I do not believe in revisionist interpretations about the motives of a man known as Venerable in his own time. I was talking about the modern day Anglo-Saxonists, who always seem to conveniently use that old prejudice in their shit-stirring campaigns for reviving an Anglo-Saxon(Mercia-Wessex) England and who continue to belittle the Danelaw's importance. The map on the Wedmore page is inaccurate because Bernicia was just as part of the Danelaw as the East Midlands and East Anglia, even if the Danes did not colonise that area and leave placenames(Durham was colonised, further complicating the map). 68.110.9.62 20:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is the last I'll say on the matter. I think your view that "if there's a common English people, then there is a common English kingdom" is pretty flawed and doesn't show much understanding of early medieval history. Similarly, Bede has been used extensivley by historians, and those who use him always get to grips with the subtleties of his text. I think for you the Bible analogy is appropriate: you'd seem to think that because someone had the title "Venerable" prefixed to their name that their work is in some way sacrosanct. A great deal of academic work has gone into analysing Bede. I'd suggest a few articles for you to read, but you'd probably think they were just written by s**t-stiring revisionists. I don't think the Danelaw is belittled; an awful lot of scholarly work has gone into it and no early medievalist I know would play down its importance. But on that same line there is no reason to play down the importance of Wessex and Mercia (and for that matter Dyfed, Gwynedd or Alba). Sorry for being so personal, but I think your attitudes are misplaced, and that you insult the vast amount of extremely good research that goes into the early medieval period. Harthacanute 13:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

There are all sorts of things wrong with using the info from the Crown website, not least copyright issues. But much of what it says is wrong historically, too. Why list Offa then jump straight to Egbert? Offa's successors as kings of Mercia were just as much overlords as Egbert was. Either we start the list with Alfred, as before (whilst also mentioning Offa in the intro), or we list all the overlords. TharkunColl 21:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'm with TharkunColl on this one. Harthacanute 21:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It is self-explanatory. That is the official website of the British Monarchy. If you cannot trust that website, then you have no leg to stand on and are grasping at straws for a reality that never existed. If you must read between the lines, do it in individual monarchs' articles. 68.110.9.62 21:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an "official list" of English monarchs, that website is merely for historical guidance, and is demonstrably wrong. Egbert was never "king of England". TharkunColl 21:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You better believe Crown copyright when the Queen's stamp of approval is on it. 68.110.9.62 21:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Why? That is not an official list. You have violated copyright which is absolutely against the rules. If you persist then we need to call admin. TharkunColl 21:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, 68.110.9.62, I have to question your historical method. Perhaps you could quote a (historical) source that demonstrates that Egbert was king of England? I'm off to the pub - hope the two of you can sort out your differences. Harthacanute 22:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's all historical and what the entire Royal family bases their legitimacy upon...If you have a problem with it, knock on Buckingham Palace doors and harrass them for their inaccuracy! 68.110.9.62 22:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The legitimacy of the royal family is based on an act of parliament of 1701. There is no such thing as an official list of monarchs. And how kindly do you think they'll take to you violating their copyright? TharkunColl 22:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It is THE official list. Read the Wikipedia article on Crown copyright. 68.110.9.62 22:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Just one example, from a charter of King Aethelwulf in 855. "In the name of the Triune Deity, I, Aethelwulf, king of the West Saxons and also of the people of Kent...will give to you, Dunn, my thegn, one dwelling...to the south of Rochester." No claims to be king of England or the English there. Harthacanute 22:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Disputes like this on Wikipedia are always best resolved by debate and consensus, which is why I accepted that my listing of Roman rulers had no place here. The last thing we need is another edit war. TharkunColl 22:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The present monarchy decides what is correct. Are the monarchs of that time alive to contest it? Regardless of what is written back then, the Crown promotes its image based upon certain facts. One must steer their view around their claims, as it is they who are the office-holders. 68.110.9.62 22:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The queen cannot change history by decree, any more than Canute could hold back the tide (which is what he was seeking to demonstrate of course). Moreover, the queen has never tried. That list is not official. TharkunColl 22:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That website is all the official information by royal prerogative, which I suspect you detest. 68.110.9.62 22:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The royal prerogative does not include the power to rewrite history, and has never claimed to. I also take exception to your ascribing any political viewpoint to me, since you can have no possible idea what it is. TharkunColl 22:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The royal prerogative decides the course of the monarchy and how to interpret its own succession. If you don't understand this, then you shouldn't be editing about it. You are an esoteric fanatic for the Romano-British world, at least in relation to this article. Do you believe non-English subjects of the Crown are under-represented or subjugated minorities? 68.110.9.62 22:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the act of 1701 determines the succession, which has nothing to do with the royal prerogative. But your grasp of what constitutes history is feeble at best, as is evidenr from your comments. I'm no "esoteric fanatic". As for your question, no, I don't believe that. Why do you ask? TharkunColl 22:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Your grasp of the situation is based in Whig history and parliamentary propaganda, that alas, has no water in this situation. King James dictated that he ruled the United Kingdom and this is self-evident in his rule and even the parliamentary support for the Queen's website. If you hacked her website, Parliament would fine and imprison you. That means Parliament does not dispute her claims. It looks like you don't even know what you're talking about. I just made a guess about your beliefs, but they are irrelevant anyways. This is supposed to be NPOV and I have provided information from the horse's mouth. You wouldn't believe a blue car drove past you, even if you saw it! 68.110.9.62 22:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What possible relevance to Whig history does Egbert have? James I did not create the "United Kingdom" - he couldn't even get the English parliament to agree to unite with the Scottish one. Those claims are not the queens! Do you think she wrote it herself or something? And even if she did, the queen can not change history. She is sensible enough to have never tried. By your actions you are making her out to be ignorant of history. It is you who are advocating a POV, not I. P.S. I can't be bothered to revert your recent edit, I'll do it another time or perhaps someone else will. There is no such thing as "canon", and even if there was, there is no reason to follow it.TharkunColl 22:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Your perception of Egbert is entirely meshed with the Whig thinkers in the era of Sir Walter Scott and the Saxon vs Norman ideological battles postulated by the American Revolutionaries. King Jamie's United Kingdom was based in his life and titles, that fount of honour from which the rest of the state asserts itself. The UK is not the Commonwealth of England, nor the Protectorate which you apparently support. The royal website is canon and it's important in understanding the British Monarchy. One can get no more official than www.royal.gov.uk 68.110.9.62 23:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I am willing in an attempt for compromise, to retain the list but leave the narration up to debate. 68.110.9.62 23:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Gosh. I really do not think that TharkunColl's views here are what you claim them to be, and at least he/she has provided some historical basis for those, even if I haven't always agreed on them. Your argument that just because something is on the royal website it is canon just demonstrates a complete failure to understand the simplest practices of history. Nothing is canon. On this logic, you would have to argue that in the late 1930s the accounts in German school textbooks were historical. I think we had reached a reasonable compromise before whereby the list ran from Alfred with an explanation about Offa in the introduction. Such a thing will always be up for debate due to the nature of the sources; clearly you have little knowledge of these sources and I suggest you consult them before making the outlandish claims you're making here. Harthacanute 23:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't lack faith in the Queen's official presentation as described to fit her succession. 68.110.9.62 23:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I state again that pieces of history must be grounded in historical fact. As yet all you have done is state what the Royal website says. It is not canon. This is not a debate about belief in the monarchy. This is not a debate about royal presentation. This is a debate about history. Debates about history are based on sources. As yet you have quoted no primary sources. If you did, I'd be willing to take you more seriously. As thing stand, it just seems you're advancing your own political agenda. This isn't the place for it and it has to stop. Harthacanute 23:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not steer the evidence, but merely agree with the government which is upheld by this monarchical succession. You are essentially anti-Elizabeth Windsor. 68.110.9.62 00:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right: you don't steer the evidence. You don't have any evidence to steer. Please refer to primary sources, and please do not engage fellow users on their political views, which I doubt you have much authority on which to speak. Harthacanute 00:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that no matter what, you will not accept the most official primary source in existance? 68.110.9.62 00:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Most school text books can tell you the difference between a primary and a secondary source. If you can't find one I can probably recommend a couple. If you're happy for me to sum it up for you, the royal.gov.uk website is not a primary source for the period in question. I think most people recognise that there is no such thing as "the most official primary source in existance [sic]". Harthacanute 00:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What is more official about the British Monarchy then their own website? 68.110.9.62 00:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet again I ask you to quote primary sources. A good place to start is the Anglo-Saxon Chroncicle, though it has a definite West Saxon bias. Charters, and less so coins, are also good for letting us know what titles kings used and had applied to them by contemporaries. Charters also show us where kings were making land grants, which is a sign of royal power. Please refer to these when formulating your views on history. Harthacanute 00:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Philip

It is a well-documented yet amazingly little-known fact that the man generally known to history as Philip II of Spain was also Philip (I) of England, ruling jointly with Mary I. See, for example, [2]: "almost no-one realises that this archetypal Spanish king was also known as Philip I, king of England for five years". No doubt due to the Armada, the fact has largely been airbrushed out of history, but they were joint monarchs in the same way as William III and Mary II, except that the marriage treaty stated that Philip was only to be king "for so long as the matrimony endureth" (so, due to the death of Mary, he was no longer legally monarch at the time of the Armada.)

The royal style for the joint monarchy was "Philip and Mary, by the grace of God King and Queen of England, France, Naples, Jerusalem, (etc. etc.)" [3]. As a final and clinching piece of evidence, official documents from the period are dated with the regnal years "Ph. et Mar." or "P. & M." (the first six months of 1558, for example, are "4 & 5 P. & M."). The only other instance of this being done (in England) is in the case of the co-monarchy of William and Mary. Vilĉjo 15:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It was true that Philip was styled "king" or "king consort", but was he ever truly a monarch regnant or even a co-monarch regnant? I rather doubt it. The concept of a limited reign that depends on marriage to another person, does not sit well with the concept of kingship which endures for life (or abdication) without qualification. Mary and Philip were not co-monarchs in the same way that Mary and William were. When either Mary or William died, the remaining co-monarch would carry on as the sole monarch (as William did). That was never possible in Philip's case, as Mary's death automatically meant his co-monarchy would also cease. The use of his initials in documents does not of itself prove that he was king regnant; this seems to have been more of a courtesy that reflected his style, rather than any acknowledgement of king regnant status. Your first source hardly seems authoritative, and your second source makes no reference to his regnal number at all. Prince Charles' second name is Philip (after his father), and he could conceivably choose to be known as King Philip when he ascends the throne. But if that unlikely event occurred, I bet he'd be Philip I, not Philip II. JackofOz 00:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that last point is of course speculation. But even if it transpired (unlikely, as you say), it wouldn't alter the legal status of Philip as co-regent with Mary, as evidenced by my citation of both the royal style and the nomenclature of the regnal years. Your statement that "this seems to have been more of a courtesy that reflected his style, rather than any acknowledgement of king regnant status" will need a lot of serious historical support if it is to overturn the pretty unambiguous statement of Philip's status as embodied in the marriage treaty. This article shouldn't degenerate into a wholly subjective list of those who we think were (in your words) "truly a monarch regnant" – if we don't stick to legal and constitutional status we'll be arguing from now tlll kingdom come about almost every entry on the list. Vilĉjo 21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The existence of a style most certainly does not mean that Philip was a genuine co-regent, and it is, in fact, you who need to provide scholarly support for the notion that Philip was a genuine reigning monarch, since this is not the viewpoint of standard reference works. Philip's role seems to have been somewhere between a standard issue consort and a full reigning monarch, and was not very well-defined, since he spent so little time in England. This is certainly the impression left by, for instance, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Philip. john k

Philip's position is certainly sui generis, at least in English history, and (as you say) not very well defined; hence it is hard to categorise without the risk of individual interpretation. (As you will know, this is a constant problem with list articles.) Re-reading the terms of the marriage treaty, it is clear that there is a mismatch between the nomenclature and the powers. Was he "King of England"? Quite clearly, yes, though equally clearly the term meant something different in his case. Was he "a genuine reigning monarch"? No, but then neither were Jane or Edgar Ætheling. Should he be in this list? I would argue yes – the disappearance from history of King Philip of England is a consequence of later political considerations. However, on reflection, this is probably not the forum to make the case, so I am with regret removing the entry. Vilĉjo 09:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There are certainly comparable instances of Philip's term. While Philip was still King of England, the Dauphin became King of Scots by his marriage to Mary Stuart. A few years later, Mary's second husband, Darnley, would also become King of Scots. Philip's grandfather Philip I was King of Castile in right of his wife, and his great-grandfather Ferdinand was as well. In more recent times, the 19th century saw King-consorts of both Spain and Portugal. In some of these instances, the person is clearly merely a consort who has the title of King, in others they were fairly close to being co-regent, if not fully so. I will ad that personally, I do not believe that Jane or Edgar should be on the list either - all should probably be footnotes. john k 17:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Elfweard etc.

The correct name of this short-lived monarch is Elfweard, not Ethelweard. The article title is erroneous. Also, why did somebody remove Henry the Young King from the list? TharkunColl 10:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed it (back) to Ethelweard, on the basis that the linked article is Ethelweard, and doesn't even give Elfweard as an alternative. If Elfweard is correct (can you provide an authoritative citation?) the linked article ought to be changed at the same time as this one. Vilĉjo 14:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

All the lists I've ever seen call him Elfweard (or variants thereof), never Ethelweard. Try The Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens (Mike Ashley), or this page on the Archontology website [4]. TharkunColl 15:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The plot thickens. I found this online text of the A-S Chronicle; the entry for 924 begins: Her Eadweard cing gefor on Myrcum æt Fearndune, 7 Ælfweard his sunu swiþe hraþe þæs gefor on Oxnaforda, 7 heora lic licgað on Wintanceastre. The early 19th-century translation found here and elsewhere renders it thus: This year King Edward died among the Mercians at Farndon; and very shortly, about sixteen days after this, Elward his son died at Oxford; and their bodies lie at Winchester. Not sure why the translation drops the f; but assuming Elward represents the form Ælweard it might well be interchangeable with Æthelweard (cf. St Ælred of Rievaulx, whose name can also be rendered as Æthelred). There are also other online refs to "King Ethelweard" (though I don't know how much authority should be given to this, for example.) Also, the version of the A-S Chronicle mentioned in the Ethelweard article is clearly not the same one that I have found, which makes no mention of him being "a bookish boy" or even being appointed king. So the different versions of the ASC could be giving different names. Which leaves us with the following questions:

• Do the historical sources provide conflicting information on the son of Edward the Elder? Or …
• Are Elfweard (with an f) and Ethelweard, in their various spellings, interchangeable forms? Or …
• Is it all nice and clear, with one definitely being right and the other wrong?

To be honest, I'd rather leave that judgement to an expert. Whatever, Wikipedia needs at least to be consistent (at present, all the relevant articles consistently say Ethelweard/Æþelweard – though it is of course possible to be consistently wrong as well as consistently right!) Vilĉjo 19:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In academic texts I've only ever seen Ethelweard/Æþelweard, though I could be wrong on that. Can probably dig out a few examples if you like... Harthacanute 20:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As the article is now moved to Ælfweard of Wessex, this one is now updated to say Ælfweard. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

List of monarchs of England and Great Britain

I strongly disagree with the recent merging of List of Monarchs of England and List of monarchs of Great Britain into this List of monarchs of England and Great Britain article. Why not have a List of monarchs of Scotland and Great Britain? It makes no sense. There is already a List of monarchs in the British Isles article, and then the separate kingdoms have their own separate articles. I'm going to be reverting back to the old version. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Moved back. Also, the "Succession order and claimants" section was deleted without discussion, so I restored it. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for turning that page name into a redirect, it means that it can't be used any more. On May 11 this year I wrote, on this very talk page (please see above): "If there are no objections in a few days I'll restore the post-1707 list"

I'll now try to address the points you raised above. Why not have a Scotland and Great Britain list? Well, why not? Please feel free to edit the Scottish list, I shall not interfere (personally speaking, however, I don't believe it would make much sense).

On the other hand, an England and Great Britain list makes a great deal of sense, because it emphasises the essential continuity of the state and administration. All the English insititutions simply became the British institutions in 1707. The merger, to use corporate terminology, was actually a takeover. If this were not so, why are so many Scots in favour of independence?

I removed "Succession order and claimants" because frankly it was crap - very badly written and full of POV.

Almost all reference books (e.g. The Guinness Book of Kings, Rulers, and Statesmen) list the monarchs of England and Great Britain as a single, continuous list.

The article itself even has a family tree going all the way to the present!

Since you have caused the name "List of Monarchs of England and Great Britain" to become unavailable, I shall restore the edits you removed and move the page to "Monarchs of England and Great Britain". Please enter into discussion and achieve consensus before you try and revert it again. TharkunColl 08:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• TharkunColl, this type of behavor will eventually get you banned. So, instead of opening up a discussion or Request for Move, you just create a new article called Monarchs of England and Great Britain? Is that your solution? Even though it is a list. Unbelievable! For the record:

I would have preferred to, and indeed originally did, call it "List of...", but you have rendered that page unusable. And this is not a new article, it is simply a new name for it. TharkunColl 17:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• • You are the one moving and cutting a pasting articles without concensus. I am trying to restore the status quo.

I refer you to the request I made on this talk page on May 11. TharkunColl 17:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Your opening paragraph is historically and legally inaccurate and POV. To say that Kingdom of England = Kingdom of Great Britain = United Kingdom is just not correct. You haven't provided a single source to back this up. To use the argument that most people still use "King of England" to describe British monarchs is no argument at all. This usage is incorrect. Read the Acts of Union. Why don't you go over to the United Kingdom article and try to impose this view....let's see how far you get.

I did not use the argument that most people still use the term King of England. The continuity of institutions in the state is a historical fact, and this is recognised by most reference books that simply give the whole list. TharkunColl 17:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• • There is already an article that shows the continuity of the monarchy. It is called List of monarchs in the British Isles. In case you didn't know, the current monarch is descended from the Scottish House of Stewart. So, why not have a Monarchs of Scotland and Great Britain and the United Kingdom article?

That article is truly awful in its presentation. This is simply a list, for those who want it. As for Scotland and Great Britain, why don't you edit the Scottish page? I won't stop you. And the Stuarts were deposed, by the way, and were in any case descended from the English kings. TharkunColl 17:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• • In addition to the aforementioned article, each kingdom has a separate article (well, they did before you mucked it all up): List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England, List of monarchs of Scotland, List of monarchs of Great Britain. What you have done is pasted the third article into the first, and wrapped it up in your POV.

No, I have simply restored the post-1707 monarchs which were formerly in the article.

• • Your sloppy work has created a million double redirects.
  • I'll see what I can do to get some other uses to comment on this situation. --JW1805 (Talk) 17:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The article gives a list of monarchs to the present day. What is possibly wrong with that? TharkunColl 17:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree for redirect- there is no need for a seperate list, why duplicate the much better list at List of monarchs in the British Isles? Astrotrain 18:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. That article that you cite is a truly confusing mishmash of POV. Anyone looking for a simple list will be sorely disapponted. Look at the List of Danish Monarchs for a good example of a continuous list, even though there was a period when it was united with other kingdoms. The point being that Denmark was the dominant partner in the union. TharkunColl 00:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There seemed to be something weird going on - the article apparently still existed but in fact you had added a redirect, effectively removing the entire English kinglist from Wikipedia. Would you like us to do the same for the Scottish list? Please do not do this again. TharkunColl 09:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

An interesting page, however I have to take issue with the question of the existence of a kingdom of England today. It is simply misleading to imply that term 'King/Queen of England' remains in popular usage. This is a term one sees a great deal on American TV programmes, but something that would get very peculiar looks in England itself, I feel. Furthermore, such usage is very shaky grounds, as is supposed institutional continuity, for claiming that the kingdom of England still exists today. We need to recognise, I think, the difference between a state and/or country and a kingdom. While England is a country, it is no longer a kingdom, except when it is included with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as a constituent country of the United Kingdom. There are of course political issues here, but I think such an article as this should be concerned with technical correctness and not engaged in politics.

And with regard to the argument that institutional continuity dictates that Great Britain is a continuation of the kingdom of England, this seems misplaced as well. In name the Parliament whose palace resides in Westminster is the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and as such, includes MPs from constituencies in all constituent countries (whether this is fairly balanced or not is surely an argument for outside the Wikipedia article). The fact that it is in Westminster is something of a red herring, then, because whatever the history of Parliament's origins, it remains that today it represents the whole United Kingdom. Continutity in practice does not mean continuity of status, and so we surely must look to the declared status of Parliament and the Monarchy to see whom they represent. At the time of writing, there is no Queen of England, since there is no kingdom of England. I am sure this will not be the end of the matter, but I hope to have contributed something to our debate.--Walafrid 14:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Uncrowned and monarchs?

I am sorry i am not too well versed with the topic. But i want to know why are people like Edward VIII mentioned when they were never crowned. You only become a monarch when you are crowned.--nids(♂) 12:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not true. A monarch is proclaimed King (or Queen) upon accession - the coronation may be a year or more later. TharkunColl 12:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine. That may be the case of British monarchs. Sorry to have bothered you.--nids(♂) 13:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)