Talk:List of current reigning monarchs by length of reign/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Pope?

Would one really put the pope as a "monarch?" I understand why someone would place Benedict XVI on the list, but I can also see the reasons against placing him here. How does one actually define "monarch?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.22.55 (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Besides him being the "Supreme Pontiff" (a religious office of the Roman Catholic Church), he is also the "Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City", an independent state with absolute monarchy.--Azarien (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Tonga Monach

Should delete Tonga monarch

Why? I cannot see a plausible reason to remove him from the list, and without justification for why he should be deleted, he should remain. He is afterall a monarch.Burbridge92 (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Andorran Co-Princes

One of the Andorran Co-Princes is in the list...Should not the other be in as well?

The other one I think is the French president who doesn't hold the office for life. Kennelly 12:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. One of the Andorran Co-Princes is whoever the President of France is at any given time. The other Co-Prince is whoever the Bishop of Urgell is at the time. Neither of them are in a hereditary capacity, neither of them hold the position for life, and neither of them should be included on the list as such.Burbridge92 (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Malaysian Monarchy

In my opinion the Malaysian Monarchy should not be listed as it is an elected monarchy from within the sultanate and thus they serve only fixed terms of service.

The Papal Monarchy is also elected. Elective monarchies are still monarchies, and even so the actual overall Malaysian monarchs are always monarchs of individual states within Malaysia.Burbridge92 (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Uganda

According to this [1] site, Henry Wako Muloki held office from 1955-1962 and then again only since 1995; so he hasn't been in office for 51 years, but only for 18 years together. Kennelly 09:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I would not agree to list these subnational chiefs at all, sorry.----Kaelin von Gross

Government in Exile

Should Tenzin Gyatso be on this list? Does a deposed monarch count as a reigning monarch? --Mishalak 17:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Good question, I don't know. —Nightstallion (?) 02:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A deposed monarch dosen't belong on the list. Why, because if he/she are deposed, they no longer reign (this articlee is for reigning monarchs). GoodDay 13:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should try to read before answering questions... I had totally forgotten that, yes. —Nightstallion (?) 20:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Independant Nation monarchs?

Did not some of the monarchs/rulers begin their respective reigns, under foreign powers? If so should this be stressed? GoodDay 02:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

traditional monarchies

Should traditional monarchies like Ashanti, Zulu, etc. be listed here? Their status seems rather different from that of actual heads of state. john k 10:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Answer to above: short answer is NO. These chiefs and other subnational entities do not have the status of Heads of State. They shoud perhaps be listed elsewhere.----Kaelin von Gross

HH

Isn't it a bit misleading to list the pope as HH on a list with so many other HH's? The others are His Highness, the pope is His Holiness. Also, it is customary refer to the Dalai Lama as His Holiness. Not to do so when all the others have theor proper honorific seems a slight. --Klausok (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Emirates in the UAE

It seems a little ridiculous to have Emir Saqr bin Mohammad al-Qassimi as number two on the list after explaining in the lead paragraph why he shouldn't be there. Since all the info in the table should be easy to find elsewhere, I am going to unilaterally remove him. If it is later determined he really does belong on the list, and the info here is mysteriously absent from other articles which deal with him, we can always revert.

• EDIT: Now (15:42) having carried out my decision, I can say with confidence that someone should edit the wikitable template (or class, or whatever... it didn't look like a normal template) to handle numbering automagically. I'd do it myself except, one, I don't know where, or exactly what, it is, and two, I'm afraid of breaking it.
• Edit the Second (15:48: Having read the lead paragraph more carefully, I revert my edit. Now I feel foolish. However, my observation on wikitable still stands.

Proginoskes (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

On item #9 (see Sheik Sultan of Sharjah)---change to "HH Emir Sultan......of Sharjah".----Kaelin von Gross

Portugal

King D. Alfonso Henriques of portugal reigned for 42 years, why isn't he there???

Look at the title of the article it has the word "current" in it. Don't worry you don't appear to be the only one that made this mistake. --Lemonade100 17:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The criteria for this list is "current reigning monarchs". All current reigning monarchs are listed by length of reign. There is a separate page for the longest reigning monarchs of all time, and the criteria for that page is 50 years or more on a throne. So King D. Alfonso Henriques doesn't qualify for either page, as he is not a currently-reigning monarch, and his reign didn't last in excess of 50 years. Burbridge92 (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Emperor Hirohito

Emperor Hirohito was emperor of Japan from December 25 1926 – January 7 1989.

He was emperor for 62 years so how come he is not included in this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.116.235 (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Because this is a list of current monarchs? Vans74 (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

List of longest, or list of all?

This list is titled List of longest reigning current monarchs. When it lists monarchs with reigns down to sub-one year, is it not just a list of all monarchs? Or is there a large group of monarchs who've only got 3 weeks under their belt and so don't qualify to be listed? Wikipedia also has List of current monarchs. --ML5 (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dalai llama

the dalai llama should be on the list as he is a life long leader, which is not in dispute. even the chinese agree that he was the head of a theocracy that they 'liberated' and since he has gone into exile is the 'life long leader' of tibetan buddhists world wide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it is still controversial, also, is he a Monarch? The Supreme Leader of Iran is not considered such and ultimately has a similar position as religious leader.--Lemonade100 17:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Pope is classed as a monarch, and I think the Dalai Llama is a monarch too. However, since Tibet has been annexed to the People's Republic of China I'm not sure it's accurate to say that he is a monarch currently, although he is still the spiritual leader of millions of people.Burbridge92 (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Numbering

Is it really necessary to give Mizan Zainal Abidin of Terengganu two numbers on the list, due to him being Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia and Sultan of Terengganu? Queen Elizabeth II is also the monarch of multiple nations listed individually, but aside from being ranked for the first one the rest are left blank. On the topic of Elizabeth II, is it necessary to have all of those different sections listed at all? I understand that they represent the different years at which different British colonies left and became independent states retaining the Queen as their monarch to the present day, but she actually ruled over them before when they were part of the empire, it's not like she acquired ruling over new lands, just that they were granted independence. Is it really necessary to have them all listed individually for that reason?Burbridge92 (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II

• Is there any need for the extra Queen Elizabeth II lines?, with "date of accession" likely being when each colony became independent. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I brought this up in the previous discussion topic (entitled "Numbering"), and I agree with you on the matter. I would start a nomination for the change but the lack of discussion on the topics we've posted would indicate a lack of strong support for the change. Burbridge92 (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Obi Agbogidi Olo-Ome Alfred Okolie 1

I've removed the recent addition of Obi Agbogidi Olo-Ome Alfred Okolie 1. The reason I have done so is that his page provides no reliable sources for his reign length, and the only references on the page are dead links. As such, we have no evidence of the validity of the claim, and such evidence is required for any supposed monarch to be given status on this page. The same issue has occurred in the past on List of longest-reigning monarchs. Once Obi Agbogidi Olo-Ome Alfred Okolie 1's reign has been verified he can be included. Burbridge92 (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The person(s) adding Obi Agbogidi Olo-Ome Alfred Okolie 1 has, at least twice, also removed Sikiru Kayode Adetona from the article. They additionally removed Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu'adzam Shah as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia for some unknown reason. Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well in both cases the removal is entirely unjustified. The evidence for Sikiru Kayode Adetona, beginning with what was already included on this page prior to his own page being started, was enough to convince me to add him to the "longest reigning monarchs" page. Burbridge92 (talk) 07:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Constituent monarchs

Constituent monarchs need to be all removed or all included.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, traditional leaders are not really monarchs. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I am going to remove the two traditional rulers of Nigeria on the list. There are dozens of traditional states in Nigeria, each with its own ”ruler”, but they don't have any political power, since Nigeria is a republic. It makes no sense to randomly include two of them here. Bluefairy en (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

What about the two constituent monarchs of Indonesia included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artegia (talk • contribs) 10:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Titles?

Does anyone else think that it may be helpful to specify what these people are actually called? For example listing Elizabeth II as Queen Elizabeth II? Rulers can have many titles such as King/Queen, Emporer/Empress, Sultan, Tsar, ect. Some of these people may be unfamiliar to foreigners, so it may be helpful to know how they are titled, perhaps also in their own language but certainly in English, as this is the English section of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.183.5 (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

I've changed her nations entry from Commonwealth realms to United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand as these are the only sovereign states that she's reigned over for 64 yrs. I've moved the footnote over next to her name. PS - There's no such thing as Queen of the Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Per the reign focus of this article? I've included Elizabeth II multiple reigns & thus multiple realms. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the list looks weird with a dozen Elizabeth IIs. This is a list of monarchs, not a list of countries, so I find it absurd to include the same person a dozen times, just because certain parts of the territories they reign over happened to change names. She did reign over the territory currently known as Jamaica, for example, ever since she was crowned in 1952. Of course, back then Jamaica was just a part of the British Empire, and since 1962 it is an independent Commonwealth territory that recognizes the Queen's authority. But the land is the same. Same goes for Granada, Barbados, Saint Lucia and all the other British possessions. She has been reigning over them since she ascended to the throne in 1952. The fact that they changed names, became independent and adopted new constitutions is a technicality as far as this article is concerned. I think it's best to just leave ”Commonwealth territories” and list all of them in a note. Bluefairy en (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The changes I made, are my secondary choice. I placed her in the article via her post-sovereign state reigns, as the article title emphasizes the reigns. My first choice would be to clump them all together under United Kingdom and 15 other states. I oppose using just Commonwealth realms, because there's no such nation & aswell, there's no such thing as Queen of the Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

United Kingdom and 15 other states sounds great to me. It's definitely much better than flooding the list with Elizabeth II's name written 15 times. As it is now, basically 25% of the list is made of Elizabeth II. Why didn't you go with your first choice? Bluefairy en (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't go with my first choice, because Miesianiacal would've opposed it. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely do and will. The opposition to anything else amounts to a misapplication of WEIGHT and "I don't like it", neither of which qualify as valid arguments.

That said, while I was fine with the way the list was before 9 February and I'm okay with it as it is now (since the monarch of each Commonwealth realm is a distinct legal entity, it could be argued there are 16 Elizabeth IIs, in the sense of her legal persona), I might also be okay with something in the middle: show only the UK, Canada, Australia, and NZ next to EIIR. She became queen of those four countries simultaneously upon the death of her father and so they're the countries she has reigned over longest. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

We could argue indefinitely over how WP:WEIGHT should be applied. However, what's more important IMHO, is how a monarchial reign is determined in this article. As Bluefairy mentioned, she was Queen over all these realms, even before they became independent. This article concentrate more on a monarch's reign rather then the monarch itself & therefore, I'll support United Kingdom and the 15 other states if we go with pre/post-independence entry criteria. Likewise, I'll settle for mentioning all Elizabeth II's realms, if we go with post-independence only entry criteria. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

No, 12 of the current realms were territories either of the UK or Australia when she acceded, not 15. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Those 12, were still under Elizabeth II's reign, before they became independent. But again, this will become moot, when she passes on. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I just wrote that 12 of the current realms were territories either of the UK or Australia when she acceded. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: When Charles III ascends the throne(s), I will be pushing for United Kingdom and the 15 other realms, since his multiple reigns will have begun on the exact same date, regardless of which entry criteria is used. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW, my first preference is to go with United Kingdom only, per WP:WEIGHT. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Miesianiacal I still don't get why you don't agree with the United Kingdom and 15 other states/realms/territories/whatever you want to phrase it option. It is obviously more accurate than mentioning just the UK, or the UK, Canada, Australia, and NZ. So what exactly is wrong with listing EII only once and listing the other countries in a note? I'm not an expert in Wiki policies and I just want to understand. Bluefairy en (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it's unclear (though, I have been involved in four essentially identical debates started simultaneously by GoodDay in four different locations, so perhaps I think I've written things here when I haven't). The "UK and 15..." is, aside from being a POV statement by giving the UK an unverified separation from and superiority to the other realms, incorrect: EIIR hasn't been queen of 16 states since 1952; she has been queen of 4 since 1952 (the other 12 realms weren't then states or realms or what-have-you). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I can understand why saying she reigns over those 16 states since 1952 is technically inaccurate, but isn't the exact length of reign for each state already explained thoroughly in the note? Why not just put the UK, Can, NZ and Aus in one entry at 1952 (which is correct) and leave the rest of the countries in the note? Like I said before, saying 16 states is inaccurate only from a linguistic point of view (since the word ”state” did not apply to all those territories in 1952). She did reign over the actual land since she ascended, but at that time it was a part of the UK. So when we say she reigned in the UK since 1952, the word ”UK” also encompasses all the other 12 territories from 1952 until they became independent (so we're not being unfair to these territories). The fact that they became independent is in this case a technicality that did not affect the Queen's reign. She reigned over them before, and she reigns over them after they became independent. She's been reigning over them since 1952 and her reign (everywhere, regardless of the territories' internal organization) has been lasting for 64 years now. I don't know how I can make it any clearer that it is absurd to put Elizabeth II a gazillion times on this list, instead of giving her a single entry (as she has one reign, since 1952) and explaining in the note that some of the territories she's been reigning over since 1952 have become independent in the meantime, but still recognize her as Queen. The list would then be accurate, and also a lot more concise and easy to read. It would only make sense to have multiple entries if Queen Elizabeth now conquered another territory, say France for example, added it to her kingdom and crowned herself as Queen of France. In that case it would make sense to give her an entry as Queen of France since 2016, and another entry as Queen over the rest of her kingdom since 1952. See what I mean? Bluefairy en (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose having UK/CAN/AUS/NZ with the other 12 in footnotes. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

...why? It is legally accurate - those are the only ”countries” (legally speaking) she became Queen of in 1952, with the UK comprising all the other territories which later became independent. So what's wrong? Bluefairy en (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Disputes over displaying UK + 15 or all 16, are understandable. However - UK,CAN/AUS/NZ + 12? comes across as original research. No where's in the real world, is Elizabeth II described as Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and 12 other states. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

For over a decade now, myself & Miesianiacal have been at loggerheads over whether or not United Kingdom and the other 15... is best for Wikipedian readers. TBH, the chances of the United Kingdom becoming a republic, are greater then the chances of the both of us agreeing on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Lol :)) I believe the best for Wikipedian readers is to have an accurate information presented in a concise and easy to read way, which the list definitely is not in its current form. So, for God's sake, put UK and the other 15, put UK/Can/NZ/Aus and add the other 12 in a note, put UK and the other 15 in a note, put whatever you wish, just give her one single entry instead of flooding the list! Bluefairy en (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If she must have just one entry in the article? then it should be United Kingdom and 15 other... GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

PS - Look on the bright side. When Elizabeth II passes on? it'll be a long time, before any future British monarch appears on this list. That's assuming no world wide disaster wipes out all current monarchs or mass abdications occur. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

PPS - Of course, if such an extremely rare event occurred, Elizabeth II's successor's British & 15 other Commonwealth realm reigns? would all begin simultaneously :) GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The article looks all lopsided with Elizabeth capturing a third of the places. It just gets harder to see all the different monarchs. I suggest we list her as second (with the countries she's been monarch of since she became reigning queen), and have all her other countries listed in a collapsed table. That way those interested in seeing all her reigns can do that, while those seeking other information can find that. -- Lejman (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's quite alright as this article is based on length of reigns & not individuals. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Based on the title and leading sentence, it's based on monarchs, and sorted by length of reign. -- Lejman (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd only agree to your suggestion, if we highlight only the United Kingdom & then collapse the other 15 commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

That's fine with me. She's queen of many things but primarily the UK (she's based there after all) and the UK is one of her four original queendoms. It would be a fine choice. -- Lejman (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Ack! Now the ranking order is all wrong.

Perhaps this could be fixed? Elizabeth II should have positions 4 and 5, and so on. --Pete (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought about doing that. But wasn't sure if it would be alright to number the individual multiple times. Sources always describe her as the second longest currently reigning monarch 'only. Thankfully, when Charles III ascends the throne(s), all these quirky problems (which can be solved with United Kingdom and 15 other...) will be solved. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I must urge caution in proceeding on your ingenious plan advised by email. Real-world action to solve a problem of wikiformat is probably not a good thing. I looked at changing the rankings manually, but there's a lot of work involved. --Pete (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't have email, so I'm not sure whatcha mean there. If ya want to improve the rankings? go for it. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

My first choice (mentioned a few times, now), would be based on all her reigns beginning simultaneously, which means ignoring when each realm became independent. This would be based on the fact that she reigned over all these areas, since 1952. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

So her title as "reigning monarch of the United Kingdom" in 1952 covers her reign over (say) Barbados? If that's the case, why bother mentioning Barbados and all the other little islands and by-lands later on?

I think if we are looking at length of reigns, then her specific reign as "Queen of Barbados" started on a particular date and continues to this day. --Pete (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you propose? GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that if we are ranking length of reigns, then we must rank them all. The Crown is divisible, so there's no problem in distinguishing the Queen of Canada from the Queen of Barbados. It's akin to one person submitting several different cupcakes to the local fair. Their entries might win first and third prizes on individual merit, even though the one person was the creator of both. --Pete (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Implementing the cupcake solution, is alright by me. Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done that. I was hoping that putting the hash symbol in might auto-re-order the table, but no. I hope that some of the newer and less hardened monarchs will not react poorly on waking up to read that they have dropped from (say) 22nd to 40th place in the league table. I'd say that there's nothing they can do about it, but some of these people have nuclear weapons at their control. --Pete (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

As a republican, I wouldn't mind seeing any monarchs cry :) GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Even the most hardened king is still a human being, and we should not wish harm on others. I guess they'll have to suck it up. --Pete (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)