Talk:List of English monarchs/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Commonwealth & Cromwells

Should these be deleted? They're not listed at List of Scottish monarchs, we need some consistancy folks. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It depends. They were the legal rulers of England; they weren't the legal rulers of Scotland, which was simply being ruled over by the English army. Michael Sanders 21:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they were rulers of Great Britain (not just England). In fact the Commonwealth (as I understand it) abolished England & Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It was the Commonwealth of England, not Great Britain. True, they did occupy Scotland after 1651, and also Ireland (don't know when), but the state was English, and the Parliament of England didn't have the power to dissolve the Kingdom of Scotland. The legal ruler of Scotland between 1649 and 1660 was Charles II; but he went into exile in 1651 and had no practical power. Michael Sanders 21:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And all this time, I thought it was the Commonwealth of Great Britain. It still seems funny though to have them here & not at List of Scottish monarchs. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could insert them into the Scottish list (they were rulers of the territory of Scotland as occupiers), or we could omit them from this list (since they weren't technically monarchs). Michael Sanders 22:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend removing them from the English list. Yes, Richard did succeed his father in power (like a hereditary monarchy), but then so did Kim Jong-Ill in North Korea & eventually Bashir al-Assad in Syria. Nobody would calls Kim & Bashir monarchs, would they? GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The Tender of Union or Act of Union 1652 dissolved the Scottish Parliament. The Rump truly ruled Scotland. Was Cromwell a monarch? I think so. He established an (albeit short-lived) hereditary dynasty; he was inaugurated as Lord Protector with a quasi-coronation.--Gazzster (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Howabout we simply use Commonwealth in this list and the Scottish list. The Cromwells of today would be the Kims of North Korea & the Assads of Syria (they're not commonly called monarchs). GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Whats the problem. The Cromwells are introduced with 'There was no reigning monarch between the execution of Charles I in 1649 and the Restoration of Charles II in 1660.' Its OK to have them there to show who was in charge between Charles I and II.--Gazzster (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I've no problem with it. But if it's here? it should also be at List of Scottish monarchs article. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is said there that Scotland was 'ruled by the Commonwealth' (in the entry for Charles II). By all means, add individual entries for Oliver and Richard, but I don't see it's necessary. It's just being consistent for the sake of being consistent.--Gazzster (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

But if I wasn't consistant about being consistant, I wouldn't be consistant. Anyways, they're just suggestions. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The Cromwells were certainly monarchs in all but name. Cromwell dissolved the English republic in 1653 and assumed all the powers of the monarch and a few more besides. He also conducted wars of conquest in Scotland and Ireland and was the first person in history to create a unified state encompassing the entire British Isles. TharkunColl (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And by the by, he doesn't get the attention he deserves. He was one of the founders, perhaps the founder of the modern British state. He has been much maligned by post-restoration commemntators. He did abolish Christmas, true, but given some Christmases we endure, perhaps that wasn't such a bad idea! But forgive me for putting my oar in- that's for Talk: Oliver Cromwell.--Gazzster (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

He is, to put it mildly, an ambivalent figure in British history. Reviled by the Irish, hated by some of the Scots, and denounced as a regicide by the restored English monarchy with his head on a pole that didn't receive its final, proper burial until 1965 in Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, and yet he forever destroyed the power of kings and made parliament supreme for ever more. Even though he abolished parliament. A man who lived in obscurity until he was in his 40s, then assumed a power he hated and never wanted. A very strange man. A manic depressive with obsessive compulsive disorder. An English hero and villain combined. TharkunColl (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Henry the Young King

Since we have Jane in the list, should we not also have Henry the Young King (1170-83)? Unlike Jane, Henry was a properly-crowned and anointed king, it wasn't his fault that his father didn't give him any kingly jobs to do. -- Arwel (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a common practise for kings to have their sons crowned in their lifetime. Whether history would regard them as kings in their own right is debateable. However, we could I suppose, insert a section, as a sort of footnote, listing the monarchs crowned in the lifetime of their predecessors. Heck, why not also include a list of claimants as well? Like Warbeck and Monmouth. Could be interesting.--Gazzster (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should add Young Henry to the list. I don't recall him being in any English monarch list. It's Henry II (r. 1154-89) and Richard I (r. 1189-99). I wouldn't recommend adding him. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Æthelberht's children, Ecgberht's wife

The article says that Æthelberht had two children: {{citation needed}}. Redburga shouldn't be listed as Ecgberht's wife given that Yorke and Kirby don't mention her. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

King Louis

A while ago I added a note to the article stating there was a good case for adding a King Louis. It has since vanished but worth re-instating. Louis VIII of France was proclaimed king in London and at least deserves a mention. Kings do not have to crowned to be in this list (Edward VIII was only proclaimed not crowned). The barons changed their minds and so that is why Henry III was hurredly crowned in Gloucester with his mother's tiara, but meanwhile Louis was in charge of a substantial part of the kingdom. Including Louis would make a mess of many mnemonics, so perhaps he should not be in the traditional list, but he is worthy of a footnote a least. JMcC (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he should be, but it's hard to argue against it long as non-rulers such as Sweyn and Jane are on the list. I'd sooner delete them from the list than add Louis. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
If he was proclaimed he could certainly be mentioned. The history of English monarchs is of course, mostly written by the English, who wouldn't care to admit that a French king sat on the Throne of Edward the Confessor (despite the Normans, Angevins and Plantagenets being French). A note saying something like, 'Louis is not traditionally counted as a King of England' shouold be fine.--Gazzster (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course the Angevins were the Plantagenets. Beg pardon.--Gazzster (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
In all the English monarch lists I've seen, Louis isn't included. It's John (r.1199-1216) then Henry III (r.1216-72). I'd recommend we don't include 'Louis'. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a tricky question. Edward VIII's proclamation did not make him king, and his coronation, if he'd hung around long enough to have one, would not have made him king. That's because he became king at the instant of George V's death, under the succession law. Which is also why he was unable to abdicate unilaterally, but needed parliament to pass an amendment to the law. Proclamation and coronation are rituals that are not insignificant, but do not go to the question of who is the rightful monarch. However, a lot has changed since the days of Sweyn, Jane and Louis, so we can't necessarily use this argument in either accepting them or denying them. If Louis was regarded as the king for a time by a significant number of people under whatever arrangements applied for making kings in his day, then he deserves a footnote even if we don't any more regard him as a legitimate king of England. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I still recommend against it. But, I won't fight it (the addition of footnotes). GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Your argument seems to be based on the contents of the usual lists, which exclude Louis. There's some validity in that. However I'm trying to see things from the wider, Neutral Point of View that we use around here, rather than just reflecting the view espoused by current traditionalists. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm still quizzy about it. The northern half of the UK (Scotland) was occupied by Bonnie Prince Charlie, in his father's name 1745-46. That would require a footnote of a James III/VIII. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Prior to the Act of Settlement of 1701, monarchs did not succeed instantaneously. Was Jane proclaimed by the Privy Council? - yes. Was Louis proclaimed by the Privy Council (or Curia Regis as it was then called)? - no. Was Sweyn proclaimed by the Privy Council (or Witan as it was then called)? - yes. So Louis was never proclaimed king by the body with legal competence to do so. Coronations (consecrations) are nothing to do with this. TharkunColl (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Everyone is talking sense and it's hard to fault any of the arguments for or against. And just to throw another spanner in the works, I'd suggest the proclamations by the council of a kingdom don't necessarily make a sovereign either. Most of the nobility had invited Louis to be king and there was little resistence to his entry into London. Even in medieval times, the consent of the people made a ruler. So couldn't we say that Louis did have that consent and so was lawfully king? At least until the people changed their minds? --Gazzster (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
London is not the whole kingdom, and in any case there is no doubt that those nobles were acting illegally and indeed treasonably since John was still alive. I was under the impression that this list was for those persons who were legally monarchs. That's why, unfortunately, William the Conqueror is on the list because he received the submission of the Witan (Privy Council). TharkunColl (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that's us looking back on a list of 'legal' monarchs composed some 7 or 8 hundred years after the fact. We are of course, looking at events from the view of history's victors. How can we judge what was legal and what is not according to the standards of the time? Perhaps the nobles thought, as they did at Runnymede, that they had a legal right to resist, even depose, an unjust king? They would not be the first, or last, to think like that. Was Richard II deposed illegally, making Henry IV's reign illegal? Was Richard III's. But I'm just playing advocate here. Louis or no Louis, doesn't really bother me.--Gazzster (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
What makes this even tougher? a footnote of Henry VI of England is at the List of French monarchs article. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting amdending the main list. A footnote would suffice to indicate there is a grey area (though not the Jane Grey area!). De facto rather than de jure. JMcC (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That could be justified. (And I agree, Jane was a true Queen - Mary I and Elizabeth I had an interest in scrubbing her from the official list).--Gazzster (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The de jure reigns? I'm been hoping to get rid of those from the monarchy articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, there has to be some criterion that determines who's in and who's out of our list (which in turn determines the status of such people in our related articles). What would be a more appropriate criterion? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If you guys want to put Louis in as a footnote, I won't revert it (since I'm in the minority on this issue). GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The more I think about it (Louis's inclusion/exclusion), the more I can't decide. Whatever you guys can decide on, is good enough for me. PS- I'm signing out for the night (to watch the USA's Super Duper Tuesday results), 'til tommorrow folks. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest we take each case for inclusion or exclusion to the talk page. It's so hard to come up with hard and fast rules to cover every case.--Gazzster (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Privy council or not, the man was king of England for a year...he should be on the list.

Is this page accurate?

May I suggest that this page is brought in line with mainstream scholarship on Anglo-Saxon England? No serious scholar would call any king before Alfred 'King of England', there were 'English' monarchs of Northumbria and Mercia at the same time as this so either include a complete list on every monarch ever to have reigned within England or delete all kings prior to Alfred. For scholarly reference see Stenton's 'Anglo-Saxon England' or any of the works of James Campbell. I have removed the section of the introduction that referance the Heptarchy and being Bretwalda. If anyone wishes to dispute this I would ask that they site the relevent scholarly works as I, as an acadamic, are unaware of current work that would even attempt to maintain this.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.139.100 (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is aligned to, and therefore uses the same criteria as, the Scottish page, and is not dependent on the whims of current "scholarship". Those who are traditionally kings of England are here. TharkunColl (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Alfred is traditionally counted as an English king. Any work on English history would be remiss to discount him.--Gazzster (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

'whims of current "scholarship"', that statement would seem to betray a certain misunderstanding about the nature of academic history. Before the second wave of Viking attacks there was no Kingdom of England, the Kingdoms of Mercia and Northumberland were as independant as that of Wessex, only their conquest left the Kingdom of Wessex as the last English Kingdom standing. As for the Bretwalda issue this artical is expressing a view that hasn't been held by anyone with detailed knowlage of the period since the 1970's. Bretwalda was an purly retrospective invention formulated at the time the Anglo-Saxon chronical was created (it was instigated by Alfred), I am thus going to, again remove the factually inacurate section from the first paragraph as well as the line about English Kings in North Germany. Angles does not equate to English and anyone with even a rudamentry knowlage of the settlement period would not make the claims currently on the page. If anyone wishes to reinsert those lines I ask that they footnote a reputable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camtabhistory (talkcontribs) 15:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is aligned to, and therefore uses the same criteria as, the Scottish page
As far as I know, Tharkun, no-one claims that Alfred the Great ruled the Kingdom of the Picts. At any rate, even when pursuing some fantastical nationalist anachronism, Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CoinHarthacnut.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:CoinHarthacnut.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Matilda?

Why is Matilda listed as a Queen? She was never recognized as such; every history book and textbook simply lists Stephen of Blois as King from 1135-1154. Simply because she gained the upper hand for a year during the Anarchy changes nothing. Additionally if you look at the British monarchy websit www.royal.gov.uk, Matilda is not listed as a monarch. Wikipedia seems to be the only source which (mistakenly) lists her as quee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.149.222 (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Check the references, she's listed on the Archontology website. TharkunColl (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The archontology website is not www.royal.gov.uk, which is the official British monarchy site. You can find a site with whatever information you want to find, but that doesn't make the information correct.

Additionally, the Wikipedia page for Mnemonics for the Monarchs of England/UK does NOT include Matilda or Jane. It would seem that we should be consistent. Two pages with conflicting information is certainly not consistent.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like some input to reach a concensus. Every book I've ever seen, textbook or otherwise, and I've seen many as a former history teacher, lists Stephen as the monarch of England from 1135-1154, aka The Anarchy. While Mathilda may have got the upper hand temporarily she is generally not considered to be a monarch, despite the one page Tharkuncoll found that says otherwise. I would like some other opinions. Anyone care to chime in?

Edgar Aetheling

Edgar Aetheling is typically not considered a monarch of England, either. British history textbooks and the monarchy site do not list him. The wikipedia site includes people listed as monarchs that are NOT considered monarchs by vitually any other authority. Of Matilda, Edgar Aethleing, and Jane Grey, Jane is the only one listed on the monarchy website, and even she is questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.149.222 (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The royal monarchy website does not override historical research as presented in such sites as Archontology, which lists all the ones you mentioned. Why don't you check it out? TharkunColl (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think that because there's a website that says it's so, then it's so. The overwhelming majority of books, encyclopedias, textbooks, and websites says that Edgar Aetheling was NOT King of England. The mere fact that someone was able to find a conflicting opinion does not mean it's so. According to your logic, the holocaust never happened because there are websites that say it didn't. It would seem that the common agreement that he was NOT king should overrule the few sources that say he was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.149.222 (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually most historians do count Edgar Atheling as a king, for the simple reason he reached the requirement for kingship at the time, which was of course being elected as king by the Witan. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Two monarchs at once?

The timeline says that Ethelred the Unready was King of England from 978–1016. Below it says Sveyn Forkbeard was King of England from 1013-14, which directly conflicts Ethelred's stated reign. There can't be two Kings of England at the same time. This should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.149.222 (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there can (see also Henry II and Henry the Young King, for a totally different situation in which there were also two Kings of England at the same time). Ethelred was never deposed - and spent most of the time Sweyn was king on the Isle of Wight. By the way, if you want to discuss anything further then register with a user name and sign in. TharkunColl (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Henry the Young is historically not counted as a King of England, though. However, the closes example to Sveyn & Ethelred (that I can come up with?) is John 1199-1216, Louis 1215-17 & Henry III 1216-72. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Stephen and Matilda also reigned simultaneously, recognised by different factions. And for a completely different sort of situation, there is William III and Mary II. In other words, there is nothing at all impossible about having more than one monarch reigning at the same time (though it would be impossible today under the rules laid down by the Act of Settlement). TharkunColl (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. It's one thing to ignore Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel, but quite another to exclude Matilda. We're here to inform the reader, that means warts and all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Perfect example Tharky, William III/II & Mary II. Infact, they're the only undisputed English, Scottish & Irish co-monarchs in the British Isles history. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Both of these examples are incorrect. Henry the Young King was never King in his own right. A married couple such as William and Mary is a common occurrence- Mary 1 and Philip of Spain is an example that comes to mind. You can't have two Kings of England- one or the other has to be a usurper, or else there are two rightful Kings at the same time which just makes no sense. The article as is is misleading and incorrect. Additionally most sources do not consider Sveyn to have ruled England. Even with Stephen and Mathilda, while Mathilda got the upper hand for a very short time, Stephen is the only one truly considered King by the vast majority of sources. And Thankuncoll, since my IP is recorded, my identity is really none of your business. Logically there cannot be two rightful kings at once. At the very least, one should be labeled a usurper or the commonly accepted king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.58.130 (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong -- Mary I of England & Philip II of Spain, were not co-monarchs. Mary was 'Queen-consort' in Spain & Philip was 'King-consort' in England & Ireland. And like I said above, William & Mary are the only undisputed co-monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Then we should included Louis of France as well, since he had a stronger position than John for a while. If you're going to include all questionalble monarchs, included them all. You can't cherry-pick and then say the list is indisputibly correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.58.130 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the key criteria that we ought to abide by when considering usurpers is as follows;
  1. A usurper who never de facto held the throne should be excluded
  2. A usurper who was de facto monarch af at least part of the teritory for a period of time should be included
  3. A de jure monarch who claimed the throne should be included.
  4. A de jure monarch who was proclaimed as monarch by the Witan/Curia Regis/Privy Council should be included.
  5. A de jure monarch who made no claim, and was never proclaimed as monarch should be excluded.
using these criteria;
  • Maud was de jure monarch, and attempted to claim her throne, and should be included under point 3
  • Stephen was a usurper who de facto held the throne and should be included under point 2
  • Louis was a usurper who never actually held the throne, and should be excluded under point 1
  • Edgar the Atheling was de jure monarch, and proclaimed as such, and should be included under point 4
  • Jane was a usurper de facto held the throne and should be included under point 2
  • Arthur I, Duke of Brittany was de jure the lawful successor of Richard I as the son of John's older brother, but made no claim, and should be excluded under point 5
In brief, a usurper gets in only if the usurpation was effective, whilst a legitimate claimant merely has to make some move however ineffective to claim their thone.
Mayalld (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I fully accept this criteria for inclusion/exclusion. Great work, Mayalld. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no probem with the criteria, however, Louis VIII of France does indeed qualify under de facto monarch. In fact, the wikipedia article on him says in the info box that he was King of England 1216-1217. The article further states "In 1216 the English barons rebelled in the First Barons' War against the unpopular King John of England (1199–1216) and offered the throne to Prince Louis. Louis invaded and was proclaimed King in London in May 1216, although he was not crowned. There was little resistance when the prince entered London." Therefore, Louis was de facto King for a time- a usurper who held some significant land and was proclaimed King in London. While he was not formally crowned, this does not matter as Jane, Edward VIII, and a few others were not crowned. But is seems Louis most certainly qualifies under the agreed-upon criteria, namely Criteria 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.58.130 (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, Louis was (in practical terms) 'King of London' & nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no such position or title as "King of London". In fact, since before the Norman Conquest, Londoners have considered it their right to proclaim the English King. (London, by Rutherford) It would seem that if Louis was proclaimed the King in the capital and alpha city of the realm, and he held that same territory, he qualifies under criteria 2. One of the complaints heard about wikipedia is incorrect infomation and inconsistency, and calling someone like Edgar Aetheling King, despite the fact that he never really controlled any territory as William the Conqueror's army had already been victorious, and the to fail to call Louis the King, despite the both his article on wikipedia which clearly states he was king, and despite his being proclaimed King in the capital of London, and despite his holding all the territory around London, is simply inconsistent. We all seem to agree on the criteria, but we must now enforce said criteria consistently. Criteria 2, which reads "usurper who was de facto monarch af at least part of the teritory for a period of time should be included", clearly includes Louis, who was a usurper, was defactor monarch of Londan (a part of the territory) for two years (a time) should be included. Louis clearly meets the criteria, and saying he shouldn't be included because you feel he only reigned in London clearly contrdicts the criteria which says the usurper need only be de facto ruler in PART of the kingdom. If we're going to use the criteria, let's apply it equally to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.58.130 (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. Prior to the Act of Settlement of 1701, the legal requiremant for being recognised as monarch was formal proclamation by the Privy Council (known as the Curia Regis in the Norman period and the Witan in the Anglo-Saxon period). To be sure, some monarchs - such as Sweyn, Canute, and William the Bastard, secured this proclamation by force or threat of force. But they secured it, and so were legally monarch. Others, such as Louis, and many other would-be usurpers, never secured it. TharkunColl (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. William was not proclaimed by the Witan, which had proclaimed Edgar. The Curia Regis had not yet been set up. He was King ONLY by force. Additionally, what you're saying is that after we have all agreed on the criteria for inclusion on this list, you are now changing the criteria because you don't like the inclusion of Louis? And additionally, Mathilda was not proclaimed by the Curia Regis; Stephen was. We need to pick one set of criteria and stick to it and not change our minds because we don't like the result. So if we're going to stick to the agreed-upon criteria, then we need to include Louis. If we are now not going to stick to the agreed-upon criteria, we need to choose new criteria. If Louis is not to be included a valid reason must be given and his bio must be changed. You can't have your cake and eat it to. We need rules that apply equally to all would-be monarchs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.58.130 (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to argue from ignorance. Edgar and the Witan rode out to Berkhamstead to accept William as king. I shall not engage in any further debate with an anonymous user. TharkunColl (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
So it's comes down to Matilda and Louis, eh? Interesting. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Blanket statements about being wrong and ignorant accomplish nothing. They are rude and against wiki policy. If you continue I shall request that you be blocked. You said that once the Norman period began, it was the Regis Curia., not the witan, that approved kingship. Now you are saying that the witan approved a Norman king, which contradicts your earlier statement. Additionally, I have shown that Louis clearly meets all criteria under number two. Now you say that because the territory he controlled was "only" the national capital and largest city, it doesn't count. Well, are we going to adhere to the agreed-upon criteria, or are we going to change it to be consistent, or are we going to only adhere to the criteria when we feel like it, thereby being inconsistent and wrong? Louis clearly meets all the criteria under number two, so either he needs to be included or the criteria need to be changed. We can't arbitrarily decide to make some monarchs adhere to the criteria and ignore others. RockStarSheister (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Witan approved the first Norman king because it had no choice. The term "Witan" continued to be used but was gradually replaced with "Curia Regis" in the Norman period. Was Louis proclaimed by the Curia Regis? I think not. Oh, and please go and request me to be blocked, as you threatened. For that threat, I shall not debate with you any further - even though you've signed in. Bye. TharkunColl (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
RockStarSheister, you can't get somebody blocked for saying you're wrong. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I realize that. I was arguing that his calling me ignorant was uncalled for. And I think you have a good point about it being down to Mathilda and Louis, GoodDay. They are both questionable. All I am saying is if we are going to include one, we should probably include the other, albeit perhaps with an asterisk or disclaimer of some sort. I'm saying that Louis was as much King (questionable) as Mathilda was Queen (also questionable). And since the Louis article says he was King of England, we need some consistency. RockStarSheister (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We could use 'footnotes' in the article for both. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the claim that he was King of England from his article. Was Idi Amin King of Scotland? TharkunColl (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that removing information from other articles is a meaningful way to continue dialogue. RockStarSheister (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Royal occupiers are always a historical headache. Was Henry VI of England? co-King of France with Charles VII of France from 1422-29? GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the point- it can be argued either way. So both should be included, albeit with notations. Getting rid of information from another article to prove your point does not seem terribly constructive. RockStarSheister (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm signing out for the night. IMHO, if Matilda stays? Louis stays & if Louis goes? Matilda goes. I'll let you guys work things out between you -keep it civil gentlemen-. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You are a wise man, GoodDay. TharkunCall, I absolutely agree with you that not everyone who ever claimed the throne, such as Monmouth and Warbeck, need be included. I'm just suggesting that if we include those with stronger yet still questionable claims like Mathilda, it might be prudent to include Louis as well. They both have strong arguments on both sides, so if we include one, why can't we include the other, with some notation pointing out the question of actual kingship?RockStarSheister (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC) At the very least, Mathilda should have in parentheses that her reign was debated and the statement that all agree that she was undoubtedly the rightful monarch of England is not true. I will leave the table as is with the exception that I will put "debated" in parentheses next to Mathilda's name. This seems like a fair compromise and gives notice to the reader that her claim of being "Lady of the English" was both questionable and debated.RockStarSheister (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

By the criteria that I suggested (and they are just a suggestion, open to tweaking, rather than now set in stone), Matilda is undoubtedly "in". There seems to be little in the way of valid argument that can say that she was not the legitimate heir. Louis, on the other hand I don't believe is "in". The requirement is that he was de facto monarch over some of the territory for a period of time. A pretender must actually make good his claim, lay hold of the organs of state and the like. Proclamation is not sufficient. As to the complaint about removing information from articles to prove a point. One should never cite another Wikipedia article as proof of anything. The article on Louis doesn't show that he was king. Once the erroneous claim was outed, it was rightly removed. Mayalld (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
We should beware of interpreting 13th-century English law. I believe the barons who invited Louis thought they had every right to do so under the Magna Carta and Louis did indeed control not just London but a fair bit of territory, including the "second capital" of Winchester. I think that under the listed criteria, Louis is in. But traditional historiography throws him out. And while Matilda is undisputedly on the list, it should be pointed out that she was never proclaimed Queen or used that title (in England). There is no reason she should get more special treatment than Louis and, thanks to her former life at the German court and her Angevin help, she was probably considered more of an outsider by her enemies (Stephen's supporters) than Louis was by his (the supporters of King John, no less French, many of them, than Louis). But again, traditional historiography tells us different. Srnec (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
My Funk & Wagnalls set doesnt' list Matilda or Louis, if anyone's interested. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
And neither's in the mnemonic. William, William, Harry, Steve, . . Srnec (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly- neither the mnemonic, the office British royalty website, nor most encyclopedias seem to list either Mathilda or Louis. But if we're going to include Mathilda then we really should include Louis, who was at least crowned at London, which Mathilda was not. They should either both be out, or both be included with disclaimer, including in the info box so people who just glance at the box don't get the wrong idea. Additionally, during this debate, TharkunColl deleted the info about England from Louis VII's article to strengthen his argument, as he did not want to include Louis. This practice of deleting valid information for the sake of your point of view and argument needs to cease immediately. RockStarSheister (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The question being whether we regard either as a reliable source. Clearly the mnemonic is not a reliable source, as it isn't something that can be referenced, and there is no evidence that it was constructed as a result of any rigorous examination of history. The official monarchy website is somewhat more reliable, but is a primary source, and we have other (secondary) sources which are at odds with it. In any other case where a primary source disagrees with a secondary source, we would tend to give more weight to the secondary source.
You criticise TharkunColl for deleting something from Louis VII's article. Whilst I can appreciate that you believe the text should have remained, I believe that you are failing to assume good faith here. The discussion here brought it to TharkunColl's attention that there was something in the article on Louis that was apparently incorrect, and he removed it. That is a legitimate thing to do, and whether that information was in the other article or not has exactly zero bearing in this discussion. Its precence was not evidence that he was King, and its absence is not evidence that he was not.Mayalld (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
We agree of course, that the French monarch in question is Louis VIII; not his grandfather Louis VII. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming a lack of good faith. He removed pertinent information abdout Louis' claim because it tended to disprove his agrument, despite the fact that the informaiton about his being proclaimed in London was correct. Removing true information because it runs counter to your agrument is not good faith. If he wanted to put additions about the fact that whether Louis was really King could be argued either way, that would be good faith. Simply removing information that is arguable true is not good faith. RockStarSheister (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as there was no discussion at Louis VIII of France to remove the 'King of England' thingy? It should be restored (at least until things are settled here). At least restore it as (Disputed) King of England). GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the central issues

The discussion has got rather lengthy and I think it may be appropriate to itemise the key facts upon which the question hinges. I've stated my own opinion under each heading, and invite others to do likewise;

Matilda

Provided she was the legitimate claimant, and asserted the claim, we accept that she should be in.

Was she the legitimate claimant

It seems to me that we have established this. She was clearly the legitimate heir as the only surviving legitimate child of Henry I's first marriage. A position re-inforced by the succession of her son Henry II whose claim to the throne was based on his descent from her. Mayalld (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not if Henry declared for Stephen on his deathbed as Stephen claimed. "legitimate heir" doesn't even sound medieval to me. Medieval monarchy was not like that. Why else were the Capetians crowning their succesors while still alive? Srnec (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That's the problem with trying to decide legitimacy in medieval times: we use modern standards. Western medieval states were not governed by anything like a constitution as we understand it. Rather they ran according to a collection of laws and customs that were often muddled, unclear, contradictory, ill-defined or outdated. Who are we to judge who was 'legitimate'? The truth is really that our standard list of 'legitimate' monarchs was canonised by history's victors, who had an interest in excluding the vanquished. --Gazzster (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's also note, during Matilda's time? her big disadvantage was her gender. England (in the 1100's) wasn't too keen on having a Queen-regnant. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed.--Gazzster (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That may explain why the usurpation was so readily accepted, but it doesn't actually pertain to the legitimacy of her claim, which does indeed rest upon a supposed deathbed declaration by Henry. In the absence of solid evidence for that declaration, Matilda remains a legitimate claimant, and Stephen a usurper. Mayalld (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, do we know if (during Henry I's time) the English monarch had the 'right' to designate a successor? Afterall, once he died, his orders became dormant. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The throne was in theory elective, which may give some credence to the 'reign' of Louis I.--Gazzster (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Did she assert her claim

Undoubtedly Mayalld (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Louis

Assuming him to be a usurper, we must determine whether he ever de-facto held the throne. If he was not a usurper, then he merely has to prove that he asserted his claim.

Was he a usurper

He was clearly not the legitimate heir. Henry III, son of John held that position, so he clearly was a usurper. As such the question of endorsement by the barons doesn't come into itMayalld (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If John was a tyrannus, he was a usurper and whomever the barons elected to replace him (i.e. Louis) was not. Srnec (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
We must remember that in England (in the 1200's)? the idea of a fixed line-of-succession wasn't placed in stone, yet. Also, all the English leaders probably were intitiallly concerned, having 'a minor' succeed the throne. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Did he ever de facto hold the throne

This is, I believe the key question upon which we need to decide. It is undoubtedly true that he held sway in significant parts of the kingdom, he never made good his hold, and for a usurper that isn't enough. Also, key is the fact that by the treaty of Lambeth, he accepted that he had never been legitimate king. Mayalld (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally with all of the above. Matilda had been appointed heir by her father Henry I and later asserted her claim, and furthermore the legitimate descent then passed to her son, Henry II, and from then on to the present day. Stephen was a usurper, but undoubtedly took control of the reigns of government, albeit incompetently. Louis, on the other hand, was most assuredly not the legitimate heir, and was invited to be king by a faction of barons in rebellion. Nor, crucially, did he ever gain control of the apparatus of the state. Briefly occupying part of its territory doesn't count - if it did there would be many, many other would-be usurpers who would have to be included. TharkunColl (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
We are moderns projecting back onto a time period not our own. Pope Innocent declared for Stephen and Stephen claimed a deathbed retraction by Henry of Matilda's right. Louis was "elected" by some barons who thought they were acting in the intersts of the realm, per Magna Carta (I believe) and per John of Salisbury (who gave the okay to tyrannicide). Let's keep the discussion on "facts" and not legal theory. Matilda fought a war with some success to gain the throne and had support, but never used the title Queen. Louis called himself King and was proclaimed in London. He also controlled a fair bit of countryside before leaving the island. I understand that it will mess up the list format to include poor Louis, but the merits of his inclusion are as strong as Matilda's, in my opinion. Just like including Henry VI of England in a French monarchs list.
To TharkunColl, of course Louis wasn't the legitimate heir, but whoever said the middle ages were only concerned about heirs? They were as much concerned with good government, which John was not. "Rebellion" it may be, but rebellion against a tyrant, not against the crown (they would have said). (And "tyrant" meant usurper to medieval ears.) Louis may have relinquished his title, but so did Matilda. Further, Henry II did not rule as "legitimate heir" but per a treaty with Stephen, whose own eldest son had died. If Eustace were alive, Henry would not have been king in 1154. Srnec (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there really any injury in listing all claimants who had a material grasp on the throne? It is not our role to decide, by our standards, who was legitimate and who was not. And it is somewhat arrogant of us to try.Mere pretenders, like Henry IX and Perbin Warbeck, can be safely passed by.--Gazzster (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Louis relinquished, and declared that he had never been the legitimate King. Matilda didn't do that. Mayalld (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd opt for excluding 'Matilda' and 'Louis' as their throne claims were/are disputed. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
But did his disavowal, obviously done for political reasons, mean that his brief 'reign' was not legitimate at the time and by the standards of his time? This is what we don't know.--Gazzster (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Nor shall we ever know. My views are this - If we include Matty & Lou? Then at the British list? we'd include James III/VIII (reign 1745-46). GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Not on the British list, because the exiled Stuarts did not recognise the Acts of Union of 1707. To them, the Kingdom of Great Britain did not exist, and as far as James was concerned he was king of England and Scotland. Alternatively, how about just not including him? As for including Matilda but not Louis, here's the relevant page at Archontology, which is pretty definitive I would say [1] TharkunColl (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Nah! My point? Matty, Louis (in England) and James (in GB) didn't accomplish what William I and Henry VII did - total & permanent takeover. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
There's something else we may point out. If Matty's claim had stuck? She would've been Queen regnant of England (only); where's if Lou's claim had stuck (and the Plantagenets were deposed)? Louis would've enventually have been King of France & England (not to mention a Louis IX/II, Philip III, Philip IV, Louis X/III, John I/II etc. Assuming the Capetians wouldn't have been deposed in England). GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And we'd be writing in French, eating runny cheese and going to winebars at 5 o'clock.--Gazzster (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the same would have happened if Henry VI had made good his claim to France. In those days France had something like 10 times the population of England and was much richer and more prestigious. Had the Plantagenets took over its throne they would have moved to Paris. England would have become a provincial backwater and would probably have eventually been annexed. Just like what happened with Scotland and England. TharkunColl (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Unlike Wales, Scotland was not annexed by the England (except briefly during the Commonwealth).Simhedges (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Like Scotland and England? I disagree. Anways, I still think both Matty and Louis should be excluded (due to the fact their claims are disputed - both historically & by us). GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
They'd be debates in the Estates- General about devolution in England. And Wikipedie discussions about whether the ancient kings of England should be included in List du Monarques de Grande Francais! (Pardonnez-moi mon Francais crappie)--Gazzster (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Mon francais est even crappemont - but had that situation taken place, English would be a marginalised language, and half the world would speak French... god, what an appalling thought! TharkunColl (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutement.--Gazzster (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
So what's it gonna be? Exclusion of both? GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No, Matilda stays. She's listed on the Archontology website, and that's definitive. TharkunColl (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
When did that become definitive? As I have pointed out, if Matilda is in, then Louis is in (note I have fixed the citation issue at his article). Besides, the archontology website makes it quite clear that Matilda was never queen and never used that title. Louis did, for he was proclaimed by the people of London and the baronage as such. His exclusion, as I pointed out in my original post, is solely the result of "traditional" historiography, but a quick review of the facts can justify his inclusion (avec asterisk) in this list, just like Matilda's. We do not have to follow traditional historiography in its Whiggish deference to Matilda and ignorance of Louis. Srnec (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The Archontology website is unreliable, as it lists 'Henry, the Young King'. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
And so it should, because he was king - crowned and invested and everything. TharkunColl (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Regnal numbering claims otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Regnal numbering has got nothing to do with who was or was not king, and in those days was generally only assigned after death anyway. Henry II outlived his son Henry the Young King, so the latter never got a number. If lack of number prevents one from being king, then Edward the Confessor was never king of England, which is ridiculous. TharkunColl (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's a consensus to keep 'young Henry' on the list (plus he's got a 'King of England' succession box, at his own article), so I'll leave young Harry alone. Hmmm, so far we've 'no consensus' to add Louis to the list and no consensus to remove Matilda from the list - guess we keep status quo. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Louis vs Henry

Enough said. Cheers! :) Catterick (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added a couple of sentences about Louis to the introductory text for the Plantaganets section, without actually adding him to the list after John. I hope this compromise works: it mentions that Louis did indeed rule in England, which is better than whitewashing him from the article, but does not elevate him to official kingly status, given that the Treaty of Lambeth says he was never really king. Richard75 (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Who removed Offa?

The official royal website includes him [2] (go to the drop-down menu at the top), and he assumed the title King of the English. Why was he removed? TharkunColl (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed he was deleted, until you pointed it out. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we should put him back in. TharkunColl (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Can't just revert though because there have been edits in between that will be lost. TharkunColl (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to do it the hard way, re-create him. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, on closer inspection, there were just two edits and two reversions. So I've done it now. TharkunColl (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Long live King Offa (at least on this article). GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely! Him and his massive dyke. TharkunColl (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

But is he generally recognised? Encyl. Britannica dont... --Camaeron (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Offa is not generally recognised as a King of England, under his rule Mercia had, for a while, hegemony in England south of the trent (he is to be found granting land in Kent for example). While it is true that he was the first to make the claim 'Rex Anglorum' he was not the first Anglo-Saxon King to be overlord of vast swaths of Southern England, it is as sure as any area of Anglo-Saxon history can be that Oswald of Northumbria had overlordship of a much wider area and James Campbell has sugested that this need not be confined to 'vague overlordship' yet Oswald was patently not a King of England. I would recomend that Offa be removed from this list, he was the most powerful King in England and he did much to pave the way for the unity (albeit under the Kings of Wessex not Mercia) of England but he was not a king of England.

Offa is on the royal website. Offa ruled England. Offa used the title "King of the English" and was recognised as such by foreign rulers such as Charlemagne. TharkunColl (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Reliable source for this? No, I thought not. "The notion that Offa claimed to be 'king of the English', or 'king of the whole country of England', has been shown to depend, however, on charters forged in the tenth century. In his own day he was 'king of the Mercians', and proud enough to be so." [Keynes, "Offa" in Lapidge (ed.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England] Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
IMHO it was Offa's defeat that "made" the first king of England. (pov of course!)...--Cameron (t|p|c) 14:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Then I think you are displaying the same anti-Mercian bias displayed by the West Saxons. And incidentaly, Offa was not defeated. He died at the height of his power. TharkunColl (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I can assure you, I may be opinionated but I am certainly not biassed. About above I meant 'fall' = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Offa did not "fall". As I said above, at his death he was still at the height of his powers. The Mercians were the dominant force in English politics for the best part of two centuries and laid the foundations for the English state. Had they not been weakened by the Danish invasions it would have been they, and not the West Saxons, who went on to rule it. And they would no doubt have done a better job. Or at any rate, they could hardly have done any worse. TharkunColl (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I very much doubt they could have done much better...--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
They couldn't really have done any worse. The West Saxons allowed England to come under foreign occupation twice, the second time permanently. They were far too cosy with their Continental neighbours and this eventually led to England's downfall. TharkunColl (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Nothing much has changed, eh? --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

De jure or de facto

Is this list de jure or de facto? Because de jure the Cromwells oughtn't be included...--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They're included because Richard succeeded his father Oliver as Lord Protector, in a monarchial fashion. That's the only reason I can see for their inclusion. But, you're correct they're aren't considered monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I dont believe they should be here. It contradicts the monarch article, that, incidentally, needs a lot of work done to it! --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I brought this up last year, but I can't remember the reason given for their inclusion. If this article were called List of English rulers, then they'd belong unquestionably. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. If they are kept in the article I am going to pertition ´for an article "List of American (US) monarchs"...presidents could also be classed as monarchs. Lord protector was, in effect, the same thing really...--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
No; nobody elected the Cromwell's to office & the position of Lord Protector couldn't have its powers checked by Parliament or the Judiciary etc. PS- the Cromwells are also included at List of Scottish monarchs article. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
True but the argument still stands; presidents are effectively monarchs. Especially when you consider monarch means "one ruler" which of course the president is... They are on the irish list too but I still think they shouldnt--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
We'll have to disagree on the American Presidents. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Why? Dont you agree a president is "the one ruler"? --Cameron (t|p|c) 21:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The US Congress & the US Supreme Court makes sure the US President is not a ruler. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
But in effect he still does rule...--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
He governs. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
*grins to self* This is rather like the monarch in the UK reigning but not ruling isnt it? --Cameron (t|p|c) 21:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The UK monarch is Head of State, where's the UK Prime Minister is effectively Head of government. In the USA, the President is both. Trust me, if you were to go to the American articles & suggest the US President is a ruler? there'd be a stir. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I know most people dont see it that way..I suppose it's just my POV (oops I said the word)! --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It's OK to say one's got a PoV; it's implementing one's PoV in articles, that can get tricky. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yank presidents aside, the list would have to explain why there would be a gap between 1649 and 1660. The list quite reasonably inserts Olly and Dick to do just that. And notice it sets out their titles. They are evidentally not kings.IMO they could be described as monarchs, but I don't believe they are included in the list because the author believes they are.--Gazzster (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

When signing acts of parliament as Lord Protector, Cromwell invariably used just his first name, Oliver (or Olivarius in Latin), just like a monarch would. He had control of the government executive and, crucially, held his position for life. He was succeeded by his son. By any reasonable definition he was a monarch (unlike the puppet monarchs of more recent centuries). It is also worth mentioning that the word "republic" in the 17th century meant a state that was governed by law with a representative assembly. A "republic" could quite easily also be a "monarchy". TharkunColl (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's tricky. Oliver Cromwell was offered the crown (the title King), but rejected it; thus supporting 'exclusion'. Yet, a monarch's title doesn't have to be King/Queen regnant - example - Sovereign Prince/Sovereign Princess, Grand Duke/Grand Duchess, Pope, Emperor/Empress regnant; thus supporting 'inclusion'. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. A monarch is not necessarily a king. Cromwell rejected the title of king but was granted all the powers (and a few more besides). The English republic (in the modern sense of the word) ended in 1653, as everyone at the time recognised. Cromwell was heavily criticised for betraying the ideals of the commonwealth, but he recognised that England needed monarchical government. TharkunColl (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The offer of the crown was a superfluous offer that he could easily refuse, since he had more power than Charles I ever had, even during his personal rule. Accepting a crown would have only limited his power and subjected it to Parliament. But whether we can call him monarch or not, he is necesssary to explain the interregnum.--Gazzster (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Upon weighing the pros & cons? I'd say the pros wins out. The Cromewells should remain in both articles (here & List of Scottish monarchs). -- GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Amen.--Gazzster (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
IMO there was no interregnum. Legally as soon as C I died C II became monarch. Along the lines of The King is dead. Long live the King! --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Here we go again! Eh, GoodDay?--Gazzster (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Has somebody raised the de jure point before then? I suppose you could call me an interregnum-denier = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
So presumably you alse believe that the exiled Stuarts and their heirs are the true monarchs? TharkunColl (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, I'm no Jacobite...I love the Windsors best of all, doent everyone? But what, may I inquire most politely, is the relevance of that to the interregnum?--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Because exactly the same thing happened. Parliament deposed the legitimate monarchy and set up a new regime in its place. TharkunColl (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
They merely altered the succession..IMHO, Mary and later Anne were, after all, the daughters of James II/VIII...--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
If Parliament and the Rump and the Cromwells did not have legitimate authority, then our tradition of constitutional rule is based on a lie.--Gazzster (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
But the Hanoverians weren't. Parliament acted illegally. There is no difference in principle between what it did in 1649, and what it did in 1688. And indeed, it did it for the same reasons. TharkunColl (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
How so? They inherited the crown through the act of S.--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The Act of Settlement was brought in in 1701, by a Parliament that had technically been acting illegally ever since 1688. You cannot accept this act as valid, yet reject, say, the Instrument of Government of 1653. TharkunColl (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I can and I do = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Now isn't it much easier just to elect a president?--Gazzster (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be a crime against democracy. The queen has an approval rate of over 80 per cent of the country (UK), most PM's over here can't get half of that. = )--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Relax. The UK without the monarchy would be like fries without ketchup (or chips without tomato sauce as we say). But the colonies could be spared the condiment.--Gazzster (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
And there was me thinking the most Aussies were of Brit. ancestry. Besides (as a Briton I tell you) nobody I know says "fries" either..nor does anyone I know say (or eat for that matter) "ketchup". A most uncultivated sauce as we say = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There! We have something in common after all. We also share the word 'mate', a love/hate relationship with the Yanks, a suspicion of fine food and a wary regard for all foreigners!--Gazzster (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
But evidentally tomato sauce divides us, as, I suspect, Vegemite.--Gazzster (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
IMO? 1649-60 in England & 1651-60 in Scotland, there was no Charles II. Living (in exile) in France was a bloke named Mr. Charles Stuart. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
it is law that defines names and legally he was C II. --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed he could have called himself Charles II, XXIII or Hilda Wallenstein if he wanted. But the fact remains that Parliament was the Supreme power of the land, calling the shots. And it did not acknowledge him king.--Gazzster (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Parliament was the law at the time. And Pariament said he was not king--Gazzster (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
As I've said (months ago) at Wikipedia: WikiProject Royalty, de jure reigns have got to go. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
But P wasnt able to change laws with out the royal assent. That's why legally QEII could not be disposed legally unless she signs the abdication herself...--Cameron (t|p|c) 14:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Trust me, if the UK Parliament chose to abolish the Monarchy? they would need royal assent. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Youre right of course- in normal circumstances. But by ruling tyrannically and raising his banner against Parliament, the elected reps of the nation, and by further continuing to plot when he was in captivity, Charles I had abdicated his rights. Long live Vegemite.--Gazzster (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Since this discussion has evolved into weither 'de jure' is needed? Howabout we take it to Royalty WikiProject & see if we can get rid of 'de jure' reigns. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, we are littering the page here = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Damn, I was just enjoying our discussion!--Gazzster (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Have no fear, it's moved to Wikipedia: WikiProject Royalty. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Way back in February I suggested that we considered King Louis. After much debate about who qualifies to be in the list, the dust has settled and the article looks much as it always has done. All the learned discussion on this Talk page should perhaps now be captured in an article called something like "Claimants as King of England" which lists people like Louis. There should be a link to this in See Also. JMcC (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I dunno. You mean a list of pretenders? Or a list of those who claimed the throne regardless of whether they made a bid for it?--Gazzster (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
You can't call it 'Claimants' becasue (as far as I can tell) claimants means anybody who claimed the throne which would meen all of the 'true' monarchs could be included in the list as well becasue whether you actually are next in line or not you still have to claim it as being yours. 'Pretenders' is a better suggestion but woudl make the list very large. The Quill (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:CanuteGreat.JPG

The image Image:CanuteGreat.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:
*File:CoinHarthacnut.jpg
* Image:Harold Harefoot.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Harold Harefoot fixed. Richard75 (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Disputed kings and queens

There are huge long discussions in the sections above about who should and should not be included on this list due to questions about the validity of their succession etc. I am not going to revisit these as a consensus has been reached about who should be on this list. However, I think the list should indicate where people have a controversial or dubious claim to be monarch, otherwise 1) the list looks a bit POV, and 2) the list is less informative than it could be. Therefore I have noted this in small text below their reign dates, and put their names in italics. (Matilda, Lady Jane Grey, Elfweard.) I have left Edgar Aetheling and Henry the Young King alone since there seems to be less doubt about them. (Also I have done separate de jure and de facto start dates for the reign of Charles II, since he backdated his reign to his father's death.) Richard75 (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well done, I like the changes! :) Best, --Cameron* 16:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand the reluctance to go over old ground, but if we wish to revisit these importance issues we will have to. I am concerned about calling Jane a 'de facto' Queen. She was named by Edward VI in his will as her successor. She was proclaimed. She is named in most standard lists of English monarchs. The Tudors and Stuarts had an obvious interest in blackening her name and claim. The case for the legitimacy of Jane is apparently greater than that for the Empress Maud or Matilda. BUt even so, she did have a legitimate claim to the throne, and was supported by, at one point, most of the Kingdom. If Stephen had lost the civil war, he, not Maud, would be considered the pretender.--Gazzster (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, I feel uneasy with using de facto and de jure. I know Charles II and his supporters backdated his reign to the death of his father. But his saying so does not make it so. You know what I mean? If he was de jure from 1648, then the Commonwealth must be de jure illegal. So we are making a judgement on the legality of regime begun by the Long Parliament. Far safer to say, 'claimed to have reigned from 1648 or some such'. But there is no need even for that statement, for we would need to state the time all the other deposed monarchs or royals excluded from the succession started their 'legal' reigns (eg., 'James III and VIII', 'Charles III', etc.).--Gazzster (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it not also the case that James II was de jure king from 1688 until his death in 1701? Certainly, his deposition by parliament had all the legallity of Charles II's similar deposition in 1649. ðarkuncoll 16:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's interest and comments. I'll start with Jane. First, Edward VI's will, which named her as his successor, did not change the law. Only an Act of Parliament could do that. The line of succession was already set by an Act passed by Henry VIII, and nothing short of another Act could alter it. Also Edward was not old enough to make a will under the law at the time. (See Lady Jane Grey#Claim to the throne and accession.) Her procalamation by the Accession Council was not legally binding. The fact that she appears on other lists only means that those lists -- like this list -- show de facto or controversial monarchs as well as undisputed ones. As I said, I am not saying we should remove Jane from Wikipedia's list, but we should acknowledge that her title is not undisputed or incontestable.
Matilda: I take your point, but Stephen did win the civil war, so we have to go with who is actually considered the pretender rather than who would have been. Again, the list does not emphatically say she was not queen and doesn;t leave her out, it just indicates the controversy.
Commonwealth / Long Parliament / Charles II: We are not making a judgement on the legality of the Commonwealth. Charles II and the English courts did that. Under the law at the time (and now), an Act of Parliament was not legally binding until it got royal assent, which the Long Parliament's Bill abolishing the monarchy never received. When the king died the heir's reign started immediately, so Charles II was officially king from that point. I want to avoid POV violations, and the best way to do so seems to me to be to leave the Commonwealth section up there but to indicate both start dates for Charles II. The only alternatives are either to go back to how the list was, which implied that the Commonwealth was legal, which I think is a clear POV becuase it contravenes the accepted constitutional view; or to remove the Commonwealth sections, which would be unhelpful as the Cromwells were the actual rulers and it would make the list less informative. How we choose to say it, eg. your suggestion to say "claimed to...", is not really a problem, I'm sure we can come up with something that works. By the way, since Charles III, James VIII etc are not on the list, we don't have to worry about them - we don't need to add or remove anyone, since that's been settled.
James II: I agree with the point made above. I suppose the only answer is that Charles II won eventually, and James II lost, and history gets written by the winners. There is always an element of "victor's justice" in these sort of lists, but I think we have to accept that if the courts at the time and today accepted as legally binding the Acts of Parliament which were signed into law by William III during James II's lifetime, then that is evidence that James was no longer king. However I suppose to be consistent we could always add a note on James's entry that he claimed to be king until he died, with a link to the article about the Jacobite succession. Richard75 (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I'd have Matilda, Jane, Young Henry & Louis struck from the list. Charles II reign as 1660-85 (for both England, Scotland & Ireland) & James II/VIII as 1685-88. PS- I too, don't like de jure reigns. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, de jure according to whom? It's a very subjective label. --Gazzster (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted, sorry. The revision says exactly the same as "de jure/de facto", just formulated in another (inferior) way. De jure/de facto are accepted by historians. We at Wikipedia can't overrule historians (yet...)! :) Best, --Cameron* 16:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
If I may say, in a Grouchy Smurf way: I hate de-jure reigns. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it really the case that Charles II was "de jure" from the moment of his father's execution? Remember, this was before the 1701 Act of Settlement, and it is only that act that created the concept of instantaneous succession. Prior to this, the defining legal moment was the proclamation by the succession council, which was usually done within minutes of the death of the previous monarch, as they would be gathered round his deathbed. Charles II received no such proclamation in 1649. Another legal point - since Charles I had taken up arms against his own subjects, it could be argued - and indeed was, at his trial - that he had forfeited the right to discharge the duties of monarch, and in such circumstances parliament has the right to enact legislation without his consent. There are a number of medieval precedents for this - the parliamentary depositions of Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, Edward IV and Edward V spring to mind, all enacted without the king's consent. There is even a precedent, of sorts, for the abolition of the monarchy. Before she finally decided to hand the succession to James I, the childless Elizabeth and her advisors contemplated abolishing the monarchy after her reign. In short, the events of 1649 were not quite as radical as has sometimes been made out. ðarkuncoll 18:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

One thing is for certain. Charles II did not become King of England, Scotland & Ireland on January 30, 1649. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
He may have become king of Scotland on that date, if he was proclaimed by the Scottish succession council (which I don't know), though he was certainly crowned as king of Scotland at Scone in 1651. His reign there would have lasted until 1653, when Scotland was incorporated into the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland. ðarkuncoll 18:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is no doubt about the validity of his Scottish kingship, I agree. Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland? I thought it was just the plain old Commonwealth of England! ;) Best, --Cameron* 19:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Commonwealth of England lasted from 1649 to 1653, when - under the terms of the Instrument of Government which also made Cromwell Lord Protector, Scottish and Irish MPs were brought to Westminster and the state became known as the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland. This lapsed in 1659 and the Commonwealth of England was briefly restored until 1660. ðarkuncoll 19:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, that was actually meant to be a joke. That'll teach me to be a smart a**e! :) I learn something new every day. --Cameron* 19:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah the Scottish (de facto) reign of 1651-53 is exceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Correction, the Kingdom of Scotland was abolished in 1652. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Henry the Young King, Matilda & Jane

Grrr, I still believe those 3 don't belong. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not, bud?--Gazzster (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
'Cause their claims are disputed. GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't the article say that? The claims of William I, Stephen, Henry IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Elizabeth I, William III, Mary II,Anne, George I and George II were also disputed.--Gazzster (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It's just personal opinon on my part. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

De jure

Still uncomfortable with de jure reign. We are using the two phrases incorrectly. De jure does not mean 'in theory but not fact' as opposed to de facto meaning 'in fact but not theory'. De jure means 'in law'. De facto means, 'not according to law, but in fact. So, here in Aussie we talk about a de facto spouse, as one who has the role of a life partner but without a legal contract of marriage. A de jure spouse would be one who has the role and legal title.

Now, to talk about the de jure and de facto reign of a monarch makes no sense. If a monarch reigns de jure, he, she or it reigns by law. Now, the law is a practical thing. So if His, Her or It's Majesty reigns by law, He, She or It reigns practically. It does not matter that the royal bottom is not seated in the country. Elizabeth II by the Grace of God, etc, does not reside in Australia or Canada, but she is the de jure monarch of those illustrious(especially the first!) nations. Likewise, the monarch does not even have to reside in his own head. During the Regency, poor George III remained de jure King. If the monarch is likewise incapacitated, as in the minority of Edward VI, the monarch remains de jure.

I hope I am expressing myself properly and that readers are seeing the point. If one states that Charles II was de facto King from 1660 onwards, they are actually saying that he was not lawfully King. A de facto ruler is one who assumes the functions of a ruler but without (at least immediately) the blessing of the law. A number of dictators might be called de facto rulers.Similarly, to call Charles II de jure from the execution of his father is likewise incorrect, because, as I've said, de jure, does not mean 'in theory'.It means in law. And law confers a fullness of power which is practical for all intents and purposes. So either Charles II was the lawful ruler of England from the execution or he was not. If he was, we must judge that the Commonwealth leaders were the unlawful rulers of the country, and, indeed, we should label them, not Charles, as de facto. But there is a very good case for saying the Long Parliament, was, in the absence of a friendly king, the lawful and practical authority of the land. In other words, de jure. So to summarise, we should not use the distinction of de jure and de facto, because

  • It doesn't apply to Charles II in this case
  • Because we would have to make a judgement about the legality of the actions of the Long Parliament.--Gazzster (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
One things for certain. As far as England is concerned, there was no reign at all (afterall there was no monarchy from 1649 to 1660). GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. It seems that de jure and de facto are the wrong terms to use, and we should replace them. I still think we should acknowledge somehow that Charles II backdated his reign, and that does not involve us making a judgement on the legality of the actions of the Long Parliament because that judgement was made by the court which convicted the Regicides of treason. Can I suggest for Charles we put something like:

Charles II
8 May
1660–1685
backdated to
30 January
1649-1685

Richard75 (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The English reign, gotta be 1660-1685 (no backdates). GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The edit I made last answered to the purpose, I believe. I'll restore them and see what we think.--Gazzster (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Henry VII backdated his reign to 21 August, the day before the Battle of Bosworth, so he could prosecute those who fought against him as traitors. And yet in this list his date of accession is given as 22 August - quite rightly, as this was when he actually assumed power. Why should we list Charles II's backdated reign? It was nothing but a legal fiction. ðarkuncoll 08:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

A monarchist fiction. Facts are facts, from 1649 to 1660, the would be Charles II was a fellow named Mr. Charles Stuart (IMHO). GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not for us to decide really. Historians include it, and so should we. Whether readers take de jure reigns seriously remains up to them. PS: Stuart is a royal house GoodDay, not a surname. ;p --Cameron* 16:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Republican slant on my part, as Stuart was the family name. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Cameron, which historians use the term 'de jure' reign? What do you understand by a 'de jure' reign? Because it doesn't make any sense to me.--Gazzster (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess I can live with that Royalist note at Charles II's entry. At least his actual reign is listed as 1660 to 1685. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Regnal numerals and de jure/de facto

Hello everyone! I have a question that touches on the two prior topics. Is the use of regnal numbers for Henry V and other 'usurpers' historgraphic in nature or was it convention even in the day of Henry IV, ? Did the rival houses of Lancaster and York recognize the other's prior tenure as ruler, or did each new regime attempt to label the other as 'usurper' and not aknowladge them in the succession?

This poses another question, as Henry VII Tudor was the heir of the House of Lancaster, and Elizabeth of York was the heiress of the House of York (was she?), was she not a Queen Regnant in the same way that William of Orange and Mary II? If this Elizabeth of York was heiress to the Yorkist claim, would not then Elizabeth the Great be really Elizabeth II, and the current Elizabeth be the III?

Are there any clear guidelines for these conventions and when they became established? ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 07:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth of York was never a Queen Regnant (i.e monarch), only a Queen-consort (monarchs spouse), thus no regnal numeral. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Mary II was a Queen Regent but Elizabeth of York was a Queen Consort she was never crowned. In the UK only a monarch who was crowned can be given numerals. William and Mary are a unique case in British History as they are the only monarchs to be crowned with their spouse. The Quill (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
It is not true that only a monarch who has been crowned can be given numerals: Neither Edward V of England nor Edward VIII of the UK were crowned. Possibly some early Scottish numbered monarchs may not have been crowned either.
Mary II was a Queen Regnant. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The numbers given in this list are exactly those as recognised by contemporaries. Hence there are no numbers for pre-Norman monarchs as in those days nicknames were used instead - therefore Edward I should in logic have been Edward IV, but wasn't (and nor for that matter was Henry the Young King assigned a number, meaning that there were nine Henrys, not eight). It should always be born in mind that numbers are arbitrary and need not conform to logic in any way. However The Quill is incorrect to state that William and Mary were the only monarchs crowned with their spouses. In fact most monarchs, if married, were crowned with their spouses - as King and Queen (consort). William and Mary's case was unique by Act of Parliament, and in any case though Queen regnant, Mary was the junior partner nevertheless, as recognised in law. It was, in other words, a political compromise. ðarkuncoll 16:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Related question on origin of regnal numbers

Somewhat on a related note, the text as it stands says this about the origins of regnal numbers: It was only after the Norman Conquest of 1066 that monarchs took regnal numbers in the French fashion, though the earlier custom of distinguishing monarchs by nicknames did not die out immediately.

There is no citation for this claim, and I recall in exchanges I had years ago with medieval historian John Carmi Parsons that, according to him, the numbers came into use during the reign of Edward III as there were two consecutive monarchs who were "Edward, son of king Edward." It was only subsequently that it was noted that there were previous Edwards, so the convenient fiction of "post-Conquest" numbers was created. But in fact the numbers didn't appear until the reign of Edward III, some 250+ years after the Norman Conquest. While I could be proven spectacularly wrong here, the statement at the very least needs a citation. Canada Jack (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This blog [3] says the same thing,ie., Edward called himself III not because he was III in the Norman line, but the third successive Edward. Henry VII was the first king to consistently use an ordinal. Though Edward VI could have styled himself Edward VIII. The reason why he didn't is pretty much unknown.--Gazzster (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the answer does indeed lie with Edward III, I don't know where this idea that he called himself that simply because he was the third Edward in a row came from, because it's demonstrably untrue.

Sale of the advowson of St Benet's Church, Cambridge, 1350:

As touz iceux q' cestes tres v'rent ou orrent Johan Dargentem Chivaler Salutz en dieu Sachietz moi cu' g[ra]unte a Guij de Seyncler Chivaler, Henri de Tangmere, William de Horwode, Mestre William de Wyvelyngham Clerc, [et] Mestre Johan de Merton Clerc [et] Henri de Middelton [et] Richard Tabletter la Rev'sion de Lavoweson de la Eglise de Seint Beneyt en Cantebrigg' quele Avoweson Johan de Mautravers Chivaler [et] Agneys sa femme tignent en dower de la dite Agneys de ma Heritage quele avoweson ap[re]s la mort lavant dite Agneys a moi [et] mes Heires dev'oit remeyndre et ieo avantdit Johan Dargentem [et] mes Heires lavantdite avoweson a les avant ditz Guy, Henry, William, William, Johan, Henry [et] Richard lour Heires [et] lour Assignez encountre touz Gentz garantroms as touz jours A icestes Tesmoignes Thomas Deschalers Chivaler, William Warde, Hugh de Croft, William Muchet [et] Nichole de Rysingge del Countee de Cantebrigg [et] aut's Don' a Loundres le x jour Doctob'r lan du Regne le Roi Edward tierz puis le Conquest Denglet're vintisme quartre [et] de F[ra]unce [?onzieme]

Translation:

"To all those who see or hear these [presents] John Dargentem Knight [sends] greetings in God. Know that I have granted to Guy de Seyncler, Knight, Henry de Tangmere, William de Horwode, Master William de Wyvelyngham clerk, [and] Master John de Merton clerk [and] Henry de Middelton [and] Richard Tabletter the reversion of the advowson of the church of St Benet in Cambridge, which advowson John de Mautravers Knight [and] Agnes his wife hold in dower of the said Agnes of my inheritance, which advowson after the death of the aforesaid Agnes ought to revert to me and my heirs and I the aforesaid John Dargentem [and] my heirs warrant the aforesaid advowson to the aforesaid Guy, Henry, William, William, John, Henry [and] Richard their heirs [and] their assignes against all men for ever. Witness to these: Thomas Deschalers Knight, William Warde, Hugh de Croft, William Muchet [and] Nicholas de Rysingge of the county of Cambridge [and] others. Given at London the 10 October in the 24th year of the reign of King Edward the third since the Conquest of England [and] the [?11th] of France."

John de Argentein's petition to act as cupbearer at the Coronation of Richard II, 1377

Billa Joh'is de Argente' Alloc' p' s'uitiu suo die coronat'o'is R. 2: [.... .... .... ....] preceptoris felicissimo strenuo & potenti Rege Angl' & ffranc dno Edwardo Rege t'cio post conquestum vicesimo primo die mens Junij Anno dni mill'mo Tricentesimo septuagesimo septimo & anno regni sui quinquagesimo primo successit ei Rex Ricus scdus filius Edwardi nup Principis Wall' primogeniti dci Regis Edwardi & cum tractaret & p'uisu fuisset de solempnijs coronacois ipius Regis Rici die Jouis in crastino T'nslacois b'i Swithin[ii] t'nc p'x' sequ' celebrand sedebat medio tempe de precepto ip'ius Regis Rici nobilis d'n's Joh'es Rex Castelle & Legionis dux Lanc' & sen' Angl' p' se & eius locum tenentes tanq'm senescallus in alba aula regij palacij Westm' ppe capellam Regalem inquirens & audiens que & qualia officia seu feoda dco die coronacois optinend magnates & alii clamar' ut vendicar' voluerunt sup quo tam dni & magnates q'm alij coram ipo d'no sen comparentes fecerunt clamea sua de diu'sis officijs & feodis optinend & s'uicijs faciend die coronacois sup' die Joh'es de Argenthem Chr int' alios coram ipo dno senescallo comparens exhibuit cur' billam suam in hec u'ba A son tresdoubt [mon t'shon'e] S' le Roy de Chastell & de leon' Duc de Lancastr' & seneschall' denglet're supplie Johan de Argenthem Ch'r q come il tient le manoir de g'nt Wilmondeleye el counte de Hertford de n're S' le Roy p' g'nt s'iantie cestassauoir de s'uire au Roy a sa coronement de la coupe quele s'uice ses auncestres ount fait du temps dont memoire ne court p' le manoir susdit tanq's a la darrein coronement au quele temps le dit Joh'n fuist en la gard n're S' le Roy & del age des oetz [cept] anes q' plese a sa tresredote seigni'e resceyu' le d'c'e Johan a celle office faire ore a cest p'sent coronement Et quia p' recorda r'ones & euidencias ex p'te ipius Joh'is in Cur' monstrata ac eciam p' testimonia p'c'u' [procerum] & alior' fidedignor' constabat cur' qd p'dcus Joh'es dcm man'iu de Rege tenet p' suiciu' pred'c'm consideratims extitit qd idem Joh'es d'c'm s'uic' suum Regi fac'et p'd'c'o die coronac'o'is sue & h'eret p' feodo suo ut clamauit quendam calicem argenteu' albu' unde dno Regi s'uiret p' quod prefat' Joh'es d'c'o die Coronac'o'is s'uiebat d'no Regi sedenti ad mensam de hui' [hujusmodo] calice argenteo albo & h'uit eundem calicem p' feodo suo

Translation:

"The bill of John de Argente' [?]allowed for his service on the day of the coronation of Richard II [.... .... .... ....] ... the most happy, energetic and powerful king of England and France the lord Edward the king, the third after the conquest the twenty-first day of the month of June in the year of the lord 1377 and the 51st year of his reign, there succeeded to him king Richard the second son of Edward formerly Prince of Wales, first-born son of the said king Edward, and whereas it was discussed and provided concerning the solemnities of the coronation of the same King Richard on Thursday on the morrow of the translation of the blessed Swithin [16 July] then next following to be celebrated, there sat in the mean time by the command of the same king Richard the noble lord John king of Castile and Leon, duke of Lancaster and steward of England, for him and those holding his place as steward, in the white hall of the royal palace of Westminster near the chapel royal to inquire and hear what and what kind of offices or fees, to be obtained on the said day of coronation, the magnates and others would wish to claim. On which [matter] both lords and magnates and others appeared before the same lord steward and made their claims for diverse offices and fees to be obtained and services to be done on the day of coronation. On [?]that day John de Argenthem knight among others appearing before the same lord steward, showed to the court his petition in these words To his most dread [my most honourable] lord the king of Castile & of Leon Duke of Lancaster and steward of England prays John de Argenthem knight that as he holds the manor of Great Wymondley in the county of Hertford of our lord the king by grand serjeanty, that is to say of serving the king at his coronation from the cup, which service his ancestors have done from time out of memory for the manor abovesaid, up to the last coronation, at which time the said John was in the ward of our lord the king and of the age of eight [seven] years, that it please his most dread lord to receive the said John to this office to perform it now at this present coronation. And because by the records, the arguments and evidences shown in the court on the part of the same John and also by the testimonies of the nobles and other trustworthy persons the court agreed that the said John holds the said manor of the king by the said service, we give judgment that it remains that the said John may do his said service for the king on the foresaid day of his coronation, and may have for his fee as he has claimed a certain chalice of white silver with which he shall serve the lord the king, by which the aforesaid John on the said day of the coronation will serve the lord the king sitting at table with a chalice of white silver of this kind, and have the same chalice for his fee"

See here [4]. In other words, Edward III explicity referred to himself as the third Edward since the Conquest. ðarkuncoll 08:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That's great stuff, Tharkuncoll! At least it seems I was partly correct. But let's go further - was Edward III the first to actually refer to himself as "_th since the conquest"? What about Edwards I and II? Perhaps if so, then the note could say the practice seems to have started with Edward III (regnal numbers, that is). Unless that borders on original research, of course. Surely there is a source which has investigated this topic? Canada Jack (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Whoa! Can you translate Sanskrit as well, Tharky? C'est formidable.--Gazzster (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately not. The above translations were on the website. ðarkuncoll 09:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)