Talk:English monarchs' family tree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:English monarchs family tree)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject English Royalty (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

The Little Princes[edit]

Is it strictly appropriate with a big smile under the Princes in the Tower? Eixo 13:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

WELL, IS IT?! The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.144.131.12 (talk • contribs) .

It is if you're Richard III

Surely you don't still subscribe to the Tudor slander that Dicky 3 slew the little princes? Hasn't that rumour been killed yet?!--King Hildebrand 11:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Truth or slander, you don't have to subscribe to the theory that Richard killed them to acknowledge that their death gave him something to smile about. It did make him king, after all. Dodiad (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
These image are great, but {{familytree}} would allow them to be wikified... -- ALoan (Talk) 17:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Mistakes ?[edit]

The dates for Geoffrey II (son of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine) are wrong - they're the same as the dates for Geoffry, Count of Anjou, and impossible for Geoffrey II (as written, the tree has him born when his father is 1 year old, and dying nearly 30 years before his marriage). --DrGaellon 06:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Geoffrey II's dates should read 1158–1186. Dodiad (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Something is missing...[edit]

Would it be possible for someone to add in a family tree of the Anglo-Saxons, the kings that created England (Englaland)? Deaþe gecweald 11:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This has now been rectified (see House of Wessex family tree). 86.155.20.79 (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

British or English?[edit]

This page purports to be English monarchs, as opposed to British monarchs, listed elswhere. But the first two of the three plates are headed British monarchs family tree. I wouldn't object if it were not for the very ostentatious way the separation between the two categories is made. Let's have some consistency, shall we? --King Hildebrand 11:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Printing Genealogies[edit]

Is there some way I can print these genealogies? Even when I select the printable version the bottom say 1/8 of each box gets truncated - like Edward I and Edward II are missing. I tried copy/pasting into Appleworks painting and an image editor I downloaded, LiveQuartz, and even Preview, but I can't get a REALLY printable version. Any help appreciated. Sorry to use this space for this technical issue - I'll take it off in a few days. It's such a great thing for a student of English history of the Wars of the Roses era to have at hand. Thanks. Ken M Quirici 15:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC). kquirici@yahoo.com

  • It took me awhile to figure how to print the full family trees. This is how I do it. First, click on the " i " in the bottom right hand corner of the tree you want to print. When you get there, click on "Full Resolution" underneath the image. Then, save image to your computer or external storage. And lastly, print from there. Lugnut215 (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

More Mistakes ?[edit]

John of Gaunt didn't actually get married to Katherine Swynford--he had a liaision with her, so it's supposed to be dashes, not a long line. Amd with Catherine of Valois, Princess of France, there is no proof that she got married to Owen Tudor or not, so you can put a huge question mark there. Iman S1995 00:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • According to Alison Weir's Wars of the Roses Richard II legitimatized the union and all offspring - first by a papal bull (Boniface XI), royal letters patent, a royal edit, Act of Parliament, and a ceremony under a 'care cloth'. This seems pretty official. I assume legitimatizing is retroactive. The reference to the Ballantine paperback of Alison Weir's Wars of the Roses copyright 1995 is page 33. ISBN 0-345-40433-5 Ken M Quirici
  • Also from the Alison Weir book cited above, but now p.24 - Edmund, the second son of Henry III, Earl of Leicester (also Lancaster) was nicknamed 'Crouchback'. I think that should be added, but I didn't have any idea how to. Ken M Quirici 15:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yet again - I don't know about the rest of the tree, but the children of Edward III are not in order of birth - this is crucial to understanding the causes of the Wars of the Roses. Any genealogy, especially a genealogy where primogeniture is an issue, should show the children in order of birth. The chart shows the birthdates of the children of Edward III, but putting them in that order makes things much easier to understand. Ken M Quirici 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • And another thing which is vital to understanding the Wars of the Roses, which is missed out: Edward IV and the other Yorkists were twice descended from Edward III (via both Lionel of Antwerp and Edmund of Langley). Edmund was Edward III's second son (Lancastrian patriach John of Gaunt was Edward III's third son), explaining why the Yorkists claimed seniority. Therefore both descents must be shown (as they are here: Descent of Elizabeth II from William I#Family tree). And children should be put in order (this is not the case in just about every generation with a substantial number of siblings), because the order of siblings is always vital to successional disputes. Sorry to moan- the trees are in many other respects brilliant. BartBassist (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not correct. Edmund of Langley (Duke of York) was the fourth adult son of Edward III, not the second. Lionel of Antwerp (Duke of Clarence) was the second son. Edmund's grandson, Richard of Cambridge, married Lionel's great-granddaughter, Anne Mortimer. Their descendants in the House of York thus carried both bloodlines. The Yorks' claim of seniority over the Lancasters was based on their descent from Lionel, not from Edmund. Dodiad (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Another small quibble: I don't think that King John was ever known as John I. I believe that according to convention, if a regnal name has only been used once it doesn't require an ordinal (c.f. King Stephen and Queen Victoria). BartBassist (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Lord Darnely's (father of James VI and I) parentage isn't given. According [1] at the Commons, his mother was Margret Douglas, who's mother was Margret Tudor (1489-1541). Margret Tudor took a second husband (Archibald Douglas) after James IV's death. Unless the image is converted to a SVG then it will be hard to edit this in. CS Miller (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Margaret Beaufort (1443-1509)[edit]

Lady Margaret Beaufort is down as 1433-1509, this should be 1443-1509. --90.206.20.6 (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A simpler version[edit]

I've created a simpler version of these family trees that can be found here. It doesn't have as much information, since it only shows the monarchs and how they are related to one another. I thought of maybe making it English monarchs family tree (simple) or something, but I was wondering if anyone has other ideas. --Nathan M. Swan (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

New versions of family trees[edit]

I have created three Scalable Vector Graphics versions of these family trees which I intend should replace the images currently used in this article. This would make it easier to correct any errors and to add further information. If no one has a strong opinion on retaining these images I shall replace them after 21 days of this post.Bill Oversixty (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Family tree template[edit]

This page could be converted to use the {{Family tree}} template. McLerristarr | Mclay1 23:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This template is not suitable for large family trees like the English Monarchs family tree as it takes up more page room and tends to spread across the page making it difficult to follow and understand.Bill Oversixty (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No surviving issue between Geoffrey and Constance?[edit]

So who was Prince Arthur? Who was the Pearl of Brittany?Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely it isn't Possible for there to have been two 1st dukes of Suffolk? Mary Tudor's 2nd Husband, Charles Brandon, is 1st Duke of Suffolk. But they later marry their daughter to Thomas Grey - surely 2nd Duke of Suffolk? BarshamBarsham (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A new creation bore a new 1st Duke.——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Ælfwynn[edit]

Could we add Ælfwynn to the Wessex tree? We have Edwin, about whom even less is known, and Ælfwynn's presence wouldn't cause formatting problems (parents are Æthelflæd and Æthelred; briefly succeeded Æthelflæd in Mercia before being deposed by Edward the Elder). HLHJ (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Mobile rendering[edit]

It appears that none of the family tree is rendered by Chrome (default browser) on Android as of the first 2015 edit, in either mobile or desktop view. Is anyone with more time/technical ability than me able to hunt the issue down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluppeteer (talkcontribs) 12:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Cnut's kids[edit]

Wrong mothers - Svein and Harold were Aelfgifu's, Harthacnut and Gunhilda were Emma's.

Can't swap the mothers, because Emma marries Aethelred.

So have to swap the kids, but this isn't totally easy if we want to keep Henry as Gunhilda's husband.

Needs a chart expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FitzwilliamDarcy (talkcontribs) 11:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

PS. Evidently now fixed, 21 Oct 2016, thanks Daduxing — Preceding unsigned comment added by FitzwilliamDarcy (talkcontribs) 09:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This article needs to be adequately cited[edit]

See footnote 3 in WP:CHALLENGE: if someone adds a template asking for citation it should not remove it without providing the requested citations. Many featured articles such as Charles I of England have fully cited ancestry trees and the same standard apply to this article.

There is a fundamental difference between a navigational list such as often appears in the footnotes of an article and an family tree. A navigational list such as the "Royal or noble family trees" at the end of this article contains a series of facts, each of which can be checked in the link provided. However in an family tree there is information conveyed in the tree that is probably not available in of the individual articles, for example how Lady Jane Grey is related to Mary Queen of Scots.

It is very easy to construct Family tree from unreliable sources published on the internet. However it only takes one mistake for large parts of the tree to be incorrect. For example if a grandmother is recorded as the first wife rather the second wife (the correct mother), then much of a tree will be inaccurate, even if all the other entries for every single person are correct. For this reason trees need accurate sourcing from reliable sources.

Tree like these does not need a citation on every node depicting the relationship with everyone to whom they are connected. As a parent can have many children, it is often simpler just to include a verification of parents in the child node as biographies usually include parents even if they do not include all the children. So in the case of James I of England a citation confirming his parents is sufficient. If the former is provided a back citation stating that he is the child of Mary Queen of Scots is not needed.

The number of sources needed is often much smaller that appears to be the case initially as a reliable genealogical source will often span many royal generations. See for example James I of England#Ancestry where one source (Louda, Jiří; Maclagan, Michael (1999) [1981], Lines of Succession: Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe (2nd ed.), London: Little, Brown, ISBN 978-0-316-84820-6) covers a lot of that ancestry tree. Even where that is not the case, in the example Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland#Ancestry all thirty entries are covered by just 8 citations.

-- PBS (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)