Template talk:English monarchs

Older

Until 1603 the English and Scottish Crowns were separate, although links between the two were always close - members of the two Royal families intermarried on many occasions. Following the Accession of King James VI of Scotland (I of England) to the English Throne, a single monarch reigned in the United Kingdom. The last four hundred years have seen many changes in the nature of the Monarchy in the United Kingdom. From the end of the 17th century, monarchs lost executive power and they increasingly became subject to Parliament, resulting in today's constitutional Monarchy.

and

The Stuarts were the first kings of the United Kingdom. King James I of England who began the period was also King James VI of Scotland, thus combining the two thrones for the first time.

See British monarchs' family tree. 68.110.8.21 11:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, James VI & I did unite the crowns, but this template is not concerned with Scottish monarchs – it's English monarchs! If you are in fact asserting that the Stuarts were all British monarchs, then they would all belong on British monarchs! That would, however, be wrong, as they were all King of England, King of Scots and King of Ireland separately until 1707. For instance, when the Hanoverians were Kings of GB and of Hanover, those two were not the same crown. D B D 13:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange

"Edred Weakfeet"? "Edgar the Outlaw"? And I can't say that "Stephen the Irresolute" rang many bells either, nor "Henry VIII Coppernose". I understand that there are some groups that consider Charles I a martyr, but that's a judgement Wikipedia can neither endorse nor reject. "Charles I the Martyr" is therefore inappropriate unless we get the chance to decide between that and the equally unbiased "Charles Stuart, Man of Blood". Charles II is indeed referred to as "the Merry Monarch", but he is not commonly called "Charles II the Merry Monarch". All very strange, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to see Edgar the Outlaw. Shouldn't it be Edgar the Aetheling? And I don't think I've ever seen him included in a list of monarchs....since he was never crowned. Shouldn't we use the name of the article as the base? I've never heard Stephen the Irresolute... and I spent more hours than I care to think about listening to a fellow student drone on about his thesis on Stephen, blech! At the very least, Stephen's article doesn't list that as a nickname, which makes its listing on the template just a bit odd. And I guess I need to add Stephen's article to my list of to dos someday, gah, that thing needs work. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled as to the appearance of Offa of Mercia on the list. If it's some sort of "bretwaldaship" thing - Offa wasn't one - where are Ælle of Sussex, Æthelberht of Kent, Rædwald of East Anglia, Edwin of Deira, Oswald of Northumbria and Oswiu of Northumbria? If it's de facto, where's Æthelbald of Mercia? Strange indeed to have Offa and Beorhtric of Wessex, no? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tharky added them in response to the situation at Template: Scottish Monarchs; however he's currently blocked from editing (and possibly blocked from posting at discussion pages, though I'm not certain). I'll let him, explain things here. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remove all the kings listed as kings of Wessex, and all the preconquest kings before Alfred. I don't think any of them are ever considered kings of England. Only the bretwaldas could be considered, and there are only two in that list, Ceawlin of Wessex and Egbert of Wessex. Ceawlin was certainly never king of England, and Egbert gained tribute from Northumbria once that we know of and is not called King of England as far as I know.

Aside from anything else, there's are separate Kings of Mercia and Kings of Wessex templates, so we don't need the Mercian and Wessex kings to be on this. Mike Christie (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checking TharkunColl's talk page, I see he's blocked till 16 January, so I will go ahead and edit the template now. We can discuss it when he gets back, if he still wants to. Mike Christie (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. My post-Alfred history is not strong, but I am not at all sure everyone on the list now deserves to be there. I'll leave that to others who know more, though. Mike Christie (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some further nicknames that were less controversial but still didn't belong in the template.150.101.154.162 (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames

Are any of the Nicknames really relevant to the list? (By nickname i mean richard I the Lionheart) Why cant we just have Richard I? Views on the matter would be greatly appreciated. (Electrobe (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

My own view, for what it's worth: I find the epithets useful for monarchs pre-Norman conquest, as they are not commonly known by ordinals (referring to Wessex Edwards by numbers leads to problems with the enumerations of Edward I-VIII), but I see no reason to include them for post-conquest monarchs as they can be clearly distinguished by ordinal designation. They seem to denote opinions on the monarchs in question, and are hardly ever seen on monarchic lists. The only justified one (which isn't given here) would be 'John Lackland', as he genuinely had no ordinal moniker. BartBassist (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bretwaldas

I won't remove them, but I see at some point someone readded the bretwaldas (plus a couple more). I don't think they really fit, particularly the early ones -- Aelle, and probably Ceawlin, never had much more than fairly local overlordships, and certainly didn't rule all of what is now England. To call even the later ones monarchs seems to stretch the meaning of the term somewhat too; the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms existed, with their own kings, and there are sometimes specific exclusions of authority, such as Aethelberht not being subject to Edwin. I think starting with Alfred is as early as this needs to go. Mike Christie (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless they were listed and recognised by Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - the latter, in particular, a quasi-official document of the English state. Others, such as Ethelbald and Offa, bore titles such as King of Britain and King of the English. TharkunColl (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison I would also direct people to Template:Pictish and Scottish Monarchs, which conflates lists of two separate kingdoms into one template and starts with Drest of the Hundred Battles, who may not even have existed, and certainly did not reign 100 years. TharkunColl (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't conflate two kingdoms. It was the same kingdom in this case, the fact they are referred to differently in popular sources today is just an accident of later trends. Drest is the first king to have a synchronisation, that's the only reason to start with him. You could add another few dozens kings. Or you could subtract a bunch. The first king mentioned in a contemporary source is Galam Cennelath, the first who clearly ruled the territory later known as "Scotland" is Bridei son of Beli, etc. I don't think having the Bretwalda here is such a big deal. They are the precedent for the Kingdom of England/Britain formed in later centuries, though you doubt if some of those early guys actually had that status (Kentish transmission of info to Bede ... hint hint). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with the Picts, some info has been transmitted through a number of sources, especially the early rulers. But this is how the English of Alfred's day perceived their own history. TharkunColl (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

The Cross of St. George was not used pre-1066, and the Wyvern of Wessex was not used before English unification under the House of Wessex. ðarkuncoll 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of the Britons?

King of the Britons doesn't include any of the people listed on this template, so why are they so marked here? And why is any Mercian king listed as a Bretwalda? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King of the Britons apparently only lists those Kings of the Britons who were ethnically British/Welsh, and is little more than OR in my opinion. Those English rulers marked here as overlords of Britain are those who had secured the submission of the Scots and others, such as Athelstan, or who used the title. The first section used to say "Overlords or Bretwaldas of the English", but someone has evidently removed the word "Overlords". It would certainly be incorrect and misleading not to list the Mercian overlords, however, since they were probably more powerful than any others, and, it is believed, were not included in the "official" Bretwalda list out of anti-Mercian bias. ðarkuncoll 23:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Anglo-Saxon kings claimed to be king of the Britons, nor were they called that by chroniclers. If you want to claim that C10th charter and numismatic evidence is meaningful, you'll be wanting a source for that. Who knows, maybe there are some. But not for Æthelbald I fear. And Bretwaldas are those people listed by the ASC, and no Mercians are on the list. Yes, the source is biased, but that's what it says. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A number of Anglo-Saxon kings claimed to be Kings of Britain (as indicated here) - but not of the Britons. The article King of the Britons has got nothing to do with this one really. As for the Mercian overlords, I suggest, then, that we simply replace the word "Bretwalda" with "Overlord", since this will give a more accurate representation of the facts (with possibly someting like "or Bretwaldas" in brackets). When Bede listed them he didn't use the word Bretwalda either, though his list was later copied by the ASC which did use it. ðarkuncoll 01:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A great many of the later kings claimed to be kings of France, and Jamie the Saxt was king of Great Britain, according to him, but those are [not! Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)] included, and for good reason. Are there any historians saying these were "overlords"? If not, don't add the stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Athelstan for a start off secured the submission of the Scots and many other kingdoms in Britain. As for James I, I have often argued that the list of British monarchs should begin with him, rather than Anne. ðarkuncoll 01:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's something best dealt with in the Athelstan article I think. This is a template, it doesn't do nuances. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it does list those who were also monarchs of Ireland, and Scotland. Which information is right to include? ðarkuncoll 01:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much room for debate on also-of-Scotland or also-of-Ireland, is there? That seems to me to be indisputably right for inclusion. But someone may be along any minute to disagree. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) The article on Offa of Mercia, for example, says that although there is some evidence Offa was called King of the English, the evidence and conclusion are disputed, and that a more general consensus among modern historians would be that Offa thought of himself as King of the Mercians. (I seem to recall there was some criticism of this section from the Deacon, though I don't recall the details.) I'd say "bretwalda" is definitely wrong for the Mercians, since regardless of their actual authority there's no evidence anyone called them that; and I think some evidence is needed for the "overlord" title beyond the bretwaldas. I'm not really sure it makes sense to have the bretwaldas in this template; it's a bit misleading to a reader who might infer that Aelle was a "Monarch of the English" in something of the same way that Alfred was. Perhaps a separate template would work better for them. Mike Christie (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are Bretwaldas really Monarchs

Technically the Bretwaldas aren't monarchs of England but of smaller predessecor states. Personnally I think that they should have there own template seperate. The Quill (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My changes reverted by The Quill

My changes have been reverted by The Quill without explantion. Here are my reasons why these changes must stand:

A grouping of English monarchy into Pre-Conquest and Post-Conquest is unsound because it is
- teleological: it subsumes all pre-1066 rulers into one fold which was irrelevant at their time. "Edmund the Magnificent" did not consider himself to be pre-conquest but Anglo-Saxon.
- stupidly vague: 1066 might be the most famous conquest of England but it was neither the first (as the Danish conquests immediately before show) nor was it the last (England was conquered in 1471, 1485, 1688)
A grouping into dynasties is warranted as the number of rulers listed is long enough - problems with intermingled dynasties (Anglo-Saxon/-Norse, Lancaster/York) are neatly delt with.
This is not a list but a sucession box. Every name should appear only once in each group, even if he had more than one distinct reign.
The Bretwalda is not an "English monarch". Its inclusion is superfluous if we only start with Alfred the Great.
Rule over Scotland and Ireland is also not on topic when the template is called "English monarchs".

Str1977 ^(talk) 11:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: The Quil again reverted without bothering to share his thoughts on talk. But we wrote something in his edit summary: "English monarchs are not organised in that manner"

A strange comment! Who says that English monarchs are not organised in that manner? I have seen them grouped into dynasties countless times, never into two stupid "pre-/post-conquest" blocks. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cromwells

I don't think that Oliver and Richard Cromwell should be included. They were not monarchs. They were heads of state, but the template is called English and British monarchs, not English and British heads of state. Surtsicna (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were monarchs. Cromwell, in his time, even called himself "Oliver" as a monarch would. They had full monarchical powers, held office for life, and were hereditary. Not to include them would be remiss, and the note clearly states they were Lords Protector. ðarkuncoll 08:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm inclined to think that this template is becoming unwieldy and, not to put too fine a point on it, rather silly. Navigation templates are meant to be just for that: navigation. They are supposed to link articles for which there is a justifiable reason why a reader should wish to jump from article A to article B in a single click. Why someone should wish to go from "Athelstan the Glorious" to "Fiji" is somewhat difficult to see. Navigation templates should consist of obviously linked articles only. They should not need to explain concepts, or have multiple qualifying footnotes, and there should be justification for not sticking to standard colours and layouts. There is a point were decorativeness becomes confusion. DrKiernan (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove the Commonwealth realms if you like, I wasn't sure whether to include them or not anyway - it was just for logical consistency (and they are, in any case, hidden away at the bottom). ðarkuncoll 08:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that both Cromwells should be included if the timespan of the template goes beyond 1603. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also king of ...

Do we really need to trouble this template with all the notes about what some monarchs also ruled. This is about English and British monarchs, not about India, Ireland or Saint Kitts and Nevis. The Elisabeth II footnote is nonsensical. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. And of course I still advocate a groupin into dynasties, ending this list in 1603 or 1707 and leaving out the "overlord" stuff. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the flag for the Cromwells appears to be wrong. The image file says that this was the flag 1658-1660, hence not during Oliver's lifetime. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The flags are not intended to represent the whole period - the Cross of St. George, for example, wasn't adopted till the time of Richard I. Identifying what the monarchs were also monarchs of is also very useful. ðarkuncoll 23:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not very useful, especially when it pertains to Saint Kitts and Nevis but also to India and even to British countries. I might be convinced of the latter, but never of the former. And never of "overlord of Britain" when the rulers marked this way were not Britons at all.

And the cross of Saint George is hardly the same as a flag that was used only for 2 years and only during one year of the two Protectors mentioned. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and of course one more thing: Philip II of Spain was not "King of England", certainly never monarch of England. He was Mary's consort. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out the articles on those monarchs and the links. They were indeed overlords. You've put a coat of arms in the place of a flag, which is just plain wrong - why not put coats of arms in all the places? As for Philip, remove him if you like - I didn't put him there. ðarkuncoll 23:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overlords maybe but not "of Britain" or "the Britons" - and they were Anglo-Saxons and not Britons.

I don't care at all about your CoA and flag distinction. The Anglo-Saxon dragon is no flag either. IMHO all those flags and CoAs should go from the template.

Yes, by reverting me you put Philip there. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the citations - they were overlords of Britain, and said so. ðarkuncoll 00:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out realtiy - they were not King of the Britons, as you insist to link to. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That link was not put there by me! Anyway, I've just changed it. And if you don't believe some Anglo-Saxon monarchs were overlords of Britain, see here [1] ðarkuncoll 00:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you reverted it for some time. My objection was against the factual accuracy of having "King of the Britons" and against the appropriateness of having all these "also king of" notes. We've compromised on the latter and you have changed the former. Hence case closed in that regard. 21:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

We've discussed Philip's status here. TharkunColl also participated in the discussion, but it seems that he forgot about it because he didn't prove that Philip was not a co-monarch. Surtsicna (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Philip was not a co-monarch. He was a consort and also a co-regent but not "the King of England". Str1977 ^(talk) 21:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Scots?

Option#1: Reduce & Move

This Template should be split into a Template:English monarchs & Template:British monarchs. The Scottish monarchs are just as much direct pedecessors to the British monarchs, as are the English monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish & English monarchies merged as the British monarchy. This Template disputes that fact. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As did the Welsh monarchies, and the monarchies of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, etc. We can't include them all, so we list the line through the English and British state, which has an essential continuity that the various other states that were extinguished and merged into it don't have. ðarkuncoll 23:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as we already have Template:British monarchs? the lower part of this Template is repetition. It should be reduced & re-named Template: English monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved. ðarkuncoll 23:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff after 1707, has gotta go. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? ðarkuncoll 23:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain, tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need. The English state evolved into the British state, and this list recognises that fact. ðarkuncoll 00:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I disagree with Good Day's underlying assumption, I do favour a split (or rather a reduction of this template - the complementary template already exists).

If two templates cover the same people, we'd have to put both in their articles.

"Welsh monarchies" don't count as they never formed a union with England. Neither did the Anglo-Saxon which existed before the Kingdom of England came into being. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My argument against this Template's current form, is the same as why I prefered the article List of English and British monarchs to be split into what's today List of English monarchs and List of Scottish monarchs articles. This Template suggests that the British monarchy is a direct successor to the English monarchy, but not a direct successor to the Scottish monarchy. An impression that is wrong. GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've left a message at Wikipedia: WikiProject Royalty concerning this Template. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a direct successor to the English line. If you want to change the Scottish template to reflect your assertions, be my guest. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 13:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a direct successor to the Scottish line. Again, we need a Template: English monarchs. I wouldn't protest if this Template were expanded to include the Scottish monarchs & renamed Template: English, Scottish and British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily oppose that suggestion, although I suggest you seperate Pictish monarchs from the Scottish monarchs first. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 14:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be split, as the Pictish aren't the only predecessors to the Scottish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should be merged so that Scottish Kings include both Pictish as well as Dalriata kings. But if that is not possible, they should be split. And no, Deacon, the Pictish and the Scottish monarchy are not one and the same. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through the discussion over there (and especially the "arguments" put forth by Deacon) have convinced me that the Scottish/Pictish template should be split. But that has little bearing on our discussion here. If there is an English-British template there also should be a Scottish-British one. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't split Scotland and the Picts, as they are both the same kingdom. Regarding the exclusion of the Scottish monarchs, why they are the Scottis monarchs so special? More special than Ireland, or Gwynedd, Northumbria, and so on. Doesn't make any sense. Either merge the English and British kings in one template, or go back to the way it's been and have separate templates. No jumbo template for all insular monarchs. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've already got Template: British monarchs, so let's revert this Template to Template: English monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon, the Scottish are not special but neither are the English and this template treats the latter as special. England and Scotland and Ireland were the three kingdoms that formed the United Kingdom. Northumbria and Gwynedd formed nothing. The Anglo-Saxon realms were in turn all conquered or otherwise acquired by Wessex or the Danes, eventually forming the Kingdom of England. The Welsh realms were all in turn conquered by England and annexed. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It makes no sense splitting the English and British list, because to do so would falsify history. Template: British monarchs should be redirected here. ðarkuncoll 23:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet having the Scottish monarchs excluded is not falsifing history? GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tharkun, now that really is nonsense. Neither is falsifying history, but if your claim were true, we'd already have a false template by artificially excluding all the early Wessex kings (and after all, they have a direct sucession, haven't they?). And templates are not meant to tell comphrensive history but to help navigating through WP. And one can always put both the English template and the British template into one article. One can even create two supra-template (one English-British, one Scottish-British) and put them in articles. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone doubted, I favour Reduce, move and merge (merge of the post-1603 stuff included here). Str1977 ^(talk) 21:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Option#2: Expand & Re-name

Another idea, is to expand this article to include the Scottish monarchs. Then rename the article Template: English, Scottish and British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is probably the best sollution, and create "Template:Pictish monarchs" to accomodate those individuals. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 15:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, this Template's exclusion of the Scottish monarchs, seems to suggest English prejudice. It's as though the Template denies the fact that the Scottish monarchs are co-predecessors of the British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go that far, I was the one who merged the British and English templates, and I did the same with the Scottish and British templates. YeshuaDavid • Talk •

Where's the Template: Scottish and British monarchs? GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was reversed by those who wanted the Scots to remain with the Picts. It's as simple as that - the editors of the Scottish list preferred it that way. ðarkuncoll 15:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not against including Scottish monarchs, but it would be very hard to make the template look good if we include so much people. Could we put them side by side (see de:Liste der britischen Monarchen)? Surtsicna (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole denial of Scottish monarchs as co-predecessors of British monarchs, is the core to our problems. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really that big a problem to be honest, and accurately reflects the facts on the ground, as it were. I can only refer you back to the AfD discussion - even Scottish editors agreed with the current set-up, and wanted to keep their Pictish and Scottish list together. ðarkuncoll 15:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1707 Act of Union

The 1707 Union Act, was not a English conquest of the Scottish. Remember we discussed before, at the related Monarchy articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed not a conquest, but rather a corporate take over (the conquest came a bit later, in 1715 and 1745). ðarkuncoll 15:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The Kingdom of England & the Kingdom of Scotland merged as one Kingdom. The new Kingdom was Great Britain and Ireland, it wasn't Greater England and Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn' mind seeing "Template:Scottish and British monarchs" created. That hasn't existed before; I merged the Scottish template with the British to make "Template:Pictish, Scottish and Brittish monarchs". I didn't split up the Pictish and Scottish template. I don't think any editors would oppose the former. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this tedious business again. The "new" Kingdom of Great Britain was not new at all, but a continuation of the old Kingdom of England under a new name, and now including Scotland. Thus, the Lord Chancellor of England became the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain; the Lord High Treasurer of England became the Lord High Treasurer of Great Britain; the Lord High Admiral of England became the Lord High Admiral of Great Britain; the Westminster Parliament of the Kingdom of England was expanded to include members from Scotland, and so forth. But it wasn't a merger of equals - it's only later legend that makes it such. john k (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other 15 monarchies

If this Template is meant to show continuation (which IMHO it doesn't), not only does it exclude the predecessor Scottish monarchy; it also exclude the con-current monarchies of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had put them in, as a footnote (all 31 of them, since the list is historical). But the consensus seems to be to not include them. ðarkuncoll 18:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Template is a shambles, it's un-encylopedic (due to it's inaccurate impression). GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect - almost all encyclopedias and works of reference give the information in precisely this form. ðarkuncoll 18:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, my F&W encyolopedia (yep that one), keeps the English, Scottish & British seperate. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Canada has its own template, Template:Canadian monarchs. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 18:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about the other 116 monarchies - this is about England and Britain! Saint Nevis or Canada do not count. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally ridiculous business. What is unencyclopedic is to pretend that there is some great break in English history in 1707, when, in fact, Queen Anne continued to rule it with pretty much exactly the same ministers she had had before, and with a slightly expanded parliament. 1707 is a great break in Scottish history, but in England the continuities are much more marked than the discontinuities. Note the rather comparable case of Spanish monarchs. At almost the same time as the Union, the various kingdoms of the Iberian peninsula (besides Portugal) were effectively merged together for the first time into a single "Kingdom of Spain". Our list of Spanish monarchs takes no note of this, however, having decided to list all the rulers at once from the accession of Carlos I onwards, almost two centuries before. If we were to have any break, it would actually make more sense to have the break when the personal union occurred, and not with the union of the kingdoms. The template is, after all, about monarchs, not about kingdoms. But I don't think there's any good reason to have any split at all. john k (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip II of Spain

Restored italics. See here, here, here and here for lists of British monarchs that exclude Philip II of Spain. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 13:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip was never a British monarch, nor a English monarch. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think he should be on the list at all. This list is much too inclusive. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 14:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many times I need to repeat this, but the discussion is taking place here. Your argumeent is based on four websites (whose credibility is probably even lesser than credibility of the official website), while my arguements are supported by over 15 scholars, a museum and a national library. Surtsicna (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two seperate discussions - the one on that page is whether he should be included at all, which reinforces the fact his "reign" is disputed and should thus be italicised on this template. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 14:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned at that other article, Philip was only King-consort of England and Ireland. Need proof? read up on what happened in 1558 (when Mary I died). GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's you who needs to read before joining a discussion. The marriage contract stipulated that Philip is to reign with his wife during their marriage. In 1558, Mary I died and Philip lost his rights (since their marriage ended). He is not the only monarch who lost his rights before death, yeta ll the others are included. Surtsicna (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the inclusion of Philip is okay - templates like this are for ease of navigation, so it's better to be as inclusive as possible. He is, after all italicised. ðarkuncoll 14:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As inclusive as possible? where's the Scottish monarchs? GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have their own list, including all the Picts - once again, being as inclusive as possible. ðarkuncoll 14:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the Scottish monarchs are excluded from this Template. I'm sorry folks, but until the Scottish monarchs are rightfully added? this Template is only half-accurate. It smacks of English prejudice, with it's exclusionism. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "English prejudice" - it merely displays the information in the most practically accurate form. The Scottish kings have their own template, complete with Picts too, an identical situation. ðarkuncoll 15:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Why don't the English monarchs have their own Template? Like the British do? What wrong with expansion/inclusionism? English & Scottish become British. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It makes it easier to navigate between the different monarchs if they are located within one template. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 15:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(See above) Let's expand & re-name this Template. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(See above) This has already been gone over. ðarkuncoll 15:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template should rather be split than the Scottish kings added. Consider that havin merely the English and the Scottish in here, would be exclusionist to the Irish. And one woldn't want to start including the Irish.

I'd prefer having separate English and British and Scottish templates, with the British beginning in 1603. One can easily put two templates on one article.

Str1977 ^(talk) 18:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There never was an independent Irish unified state - please read List of Irish monarchs for more details on that. Also, I highly disagree that this template is exlusionist to anyone. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re 1: Who cares! There never was an independet British unified state before 1603 - why then claim such things in a way. This reminds me of another point: if it somehow includes realms that then became part of Britain, then why not include all the Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia, East Anglia, Middle Anglia, Northumbria, as well as Picts, Dalriata, Strathclydes.

Re 2: You can disagree all you like but it still doesn't make it not so. Right now it states "English and British" and then leaves out Scottish rules who were more British than any Plantagent ever was.

Str1977 ^(talk) 19:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template is only concerned with the direct line of incumbents who ruled the Kingdom of England, and subsequently, Great Britain and the United Kingdom. We don't include the pre-unification English monarchs because they ruled at the same time as each other in their different regions. "Britain" is the denonym of the United Kingdom, and we are using it to apply to monarchs post 1707. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy smokers, the Scottis monarchs are direct incumbents. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a direct line, in fact a more direct line, from the Scottish monarchs to today's British monarchs. The United Kingdom, as I learned here, was only created in 1801. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then change the Scottish template, or include the Scottish monarchs in this template, and stop complaining here. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with the Scottish but with this template. And please reconsider the appropriateness of telling others to shut up just because you disagree with them. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since we've already got a Template: British monarchs. This Template could be reduced to just the English monarchs & re-named Template: English monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude, apologies. But we've covered this; a single template allows viewers to see the continuity between the various royal lines of succession - a viewer on Elizabeth II may want to find Elizabeth I for example, and its the job of the template to be inclusive and easy to use as possible. As I've said, feel free to add the Scottish, but please reconsider your efforts to dissolve this template. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Template can't remain in its current state. We either 1) add the Scottish monarchs & re-name Template: English, Scottish and British monarchs or 2) we remove the English monarchs & create a seperate template called Template: English monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't it? I disagree that it is exclutionary, I think it would be perfectly possible to reorganise Template:Pictish and Scottish monarchs, and leave this template as it is. Equally, I don't oppose the first option, if you want to carry it out. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add the Scottish monarchs & re-name Template: English, Scottish and British monarchs, appears to be the more accepted option. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It would be unnecessary and potentially confusing. I also strongly suspect that the editors of the Scottish list will want to keep it separate anyway, and combined with that of the Picts. ðarkuncoll 22:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you continuing to resist showing the Scottish monarchs as predecessors to the British monarchs? GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. We have a link to their template on this one. Putting them on this template as well would be unnecessary and extremely confusing to the reader - remember that this is what it's for, ease of navigation. ðarkuncoll 22:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it's a false Template, because it continues to erroneously exclude the Scottish monarchs. Again, why do you resist showing the Scottish monarchs? GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my previous response. ðarkuncoll 22:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I'm fed up with the pro-English PoV Template. Sorry folks, but if I stay any longer, I'll end up using poorly chosen words. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I now favour reducing this back to just the English monarchs. Before the template was expanded there was virtually no discussion of it, but since its expansion there has been vigorous and intense debate. This indicates to me that the consensus view is to keep three separate templates. DrKiernan (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After having a few hours to cool down, I'm back. Reducing the Template back to Template: English monarchs is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "vigorous and intense debate" do you mean "User:GoodDay got annoyed? Because it seems like he makes up for his loneliness in being upset about the combined template with a vociferousness in pushing his viewpoint. I will repeat myself, then, The Union was not equal. No "British" monarch even so much as visited Scotland for over a hundred years after the union - the first two Hanoverians, in fact, spent much more time in Germany. The ostensible equality of the union, and the change of name to "Great Britain," was in fact a fig leaf for an English annexation. There is nothing wrong with listing the pre-1707 English and post-1707 British rulers in one list, and separating the Scottish monarchs into a separate list. john k (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planning on reducing & renaming

As there was only 1 desenter, I'm going to be making changes to this Pro-English PoV Template (in the next few days), to make it neutral. I'm going to delete the British monarchs & then move this article to Template: English monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support you. Surtsicna (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be doing the same with the Scottish and Pictish ones? Or is that POV okay? ðarkuncoll 18:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on splitting that template into Template:Pictish monarchs & Template:Scottish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Jza84 | Talk 19:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really disagree with this template having a pre-English bias, and I would oppose splitting it. Having said that, I don't like the Scottish template at the the moment, which needs to be improved. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that Scottish monarchs be added to this Template? GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be fine. My other idea was that we could remove the English and Britiah template from post-1707 monarchs' articles, while keepinbg it inclusive, but I'd be happy to merge the Scottiah template with this oone. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a zinger. We have Template: English, Scottish and British monarchs. Also we have Template: English monarchs, Template: Scottish monarchs, Template: Pictish monarchs. Considering the Picts, Templates could also be created for the Nortumberian monarchs, Wessex, Essex etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these templates already exist - I think the full list is as follows:

Taken from the "see also" section of this template. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictish & Scottish, definitley must be split. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the British monarchs from the Template & re-named it to English monarchs. This now corresponds with List of English monarchs & List of British monarchs articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planned expansion

After many ideas of expanding and reducing this template, I propose that a new template (Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs) should replace this template. The new templates includes Scottish monarchs, after this template was accused of being anti-Scottish. This template would redirect to the new temnplate. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as this is reasonable. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either we split them into three separate ones or we have one unified one. I prefer the latter option to highlight the continuity. --Cameron * 17:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My order of preference would be 1) two lists - one of rulers in London, the other of Scottish rulers before 1707; a distant 2) three separate lists of English pre-1707, Scottish pre-1707, and post-1707 rulers; and then 3) a single list for everyone, which would be a mess. john k (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd add that the claim that there is anything "anti-Scottish" about my first preference is totally absurd. It is only "anti-Scottish" insofar as the Union itself was anti-Scottish. john k (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Same as John. Main preference the two a template from London rulers (English and British) and one for Scone rulers (Pictish/Scottish). If that's not possible, then back to the three list solution, separate British, English, and Scottish/Pictish templates. Definitely oppose mixing all these monarchs in one template. Incidentally, I agree that Bretwaldas can count as rulers of England, as can all kings from Alfred onwards. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of England & Kingdom of Scotland merged to become the Kingdom of Great Britain; not the Kingdom of Greater England. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point? Assertion is not argument. I'll propose the following instead "The Kingdom of England annexed the Kingdom of Scotland (through a consensual treaty, admittedly) and then changed its name to Kingdom of Great Britain." I think this expresses what actually happened much more accurately than your formulation. The monarch would reside in London, and, in fact, did not visit Scotland for over one hundred years; the Scottish parliament was abolished, the English parliament survived; it retained almost exactly the same organization in England, but merely expanded to include members for Scottish counties and boroughs (and not as many as there were for English counties and boroughs); English peers got to continue to sit in the House of Lords, while Scottish peers only had the right to elect representatives to it; the Lord Chancellor of England became Lord Chancellor of Great Britain; the Lord High Treasurer of England became Lord High Treasurer of Great Britain; the Lord High Admiral of England became Lord High Admiral of Great Britain; the Privy Council and Privy Seal of England became Privy Council and Privy Seal of Great Britain; the English Secretaries of State continued to conduct all foreign affairs for the new combined kingdom, while the Scottish secretary of state was initially subordinate, and then quickly abolished; the succession for the newly united kingdom was to follow the English Act of Settlement. There were of course other areas where England and Scotland can be seen to have maintained parity - Scotland kept its own legal system and its own established church, most notably. But it's simply absurd to pretend that the new kingdom was a merger of equals. The English did not view it that way, and most Scots didn't view it that way, either - the treaty was massively unpopular in Scotland. I'd add that, until the early twentieth century, at least, "England" was considered to be a perfectly appropriate and correct name for the whole country when speaking informally. It is simply acknowledging the overwhelming weight of evidence to acknowledge that the Kingdom of Great Britain was basically a continuation of the Kingdom of England under another name. That this new kingdom was not called the "Kingdom of Greater England" is completely irrelevant to such a point. john k (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the 1707 Union Act: the Kingdoms England & Scotland merged and became the Kingdom of Great Britain. England did not conquer Scotland; It didn't become an expanded Kingdom of England. PS: Holy smokers, the British monarchs had English monarchial ancestors and Scottish monarchial ancestors. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ John , even where Scotland retained parts of independence, it was purely for pragmatic reasons. Re church, the government didn't want Scotland's almost fully armed presbyterian fundamentalist middle classes rising up, allying with anti-establishment factions in England and, re law, it probably didn't want administrative anarchy nor a huge part of the class of law clerks being unable to do their job. Hey GoodDay, there is not really any purpose in a talk page if you just ignore substantial points made by other contributors. Yes, there is an official union and legally there was a merger, but John is saying this is just cosmetics, chocolate smeared on the bitter pill of conquest so it could go down better. John's point is correct. What's more, and what John didn't say, almost everyone regards the "British" monarchy as the same one as the "English" monarchy. Few histories of England take 1707 or 1800 for that matter as more than minor points along the great road travelled by the English state from Alfred the Great to the present. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish monarchs are as much Elizabeth II's ancestors, as the English monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and so are the Danish monarchs and French monarchs. What's your point? This discussion seems to revolve around GoodDay ignoring every point anyone makes and throwing out the same non sequiturs over and over again. In this case, note that he simply repeated the exact same completely meaningless point that he had made before Deacon's comment, as though it proves anything. john k (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It repeats what I've said above (that I support the expansion of this Template). However, I did make a mistake. I shouldn't have commented on Deacon's (and your's) opposes to the expansion. My apologies, as we surley can agree to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we can "agree to disagree", but the point is that you are presenting specious arguments, and are completely unwilling to address the substance of arguments made against your position. That always makes "agreeing to disagree" more difficult. john k (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinon. I respect your reasons for opposing expansion & hope to get the same respect form you, for my opinon. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly respect that I disagree with you, and have little hope of persuading you. I would have more respect for your opinion if you would actually try to engage with my arguments, instead of repeating the same phrases over and over again. john k (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rather not continue this back and forth tug of war. It doesn't do the discussion any good. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not when you continually refuse to respond to anybody's substantive arguments. john k (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposal

Seeing as "continuing attempts at discussion with Good Day" are bound to be worthless, I'm going to make the alternate proposal of having what was here before GoodDay got involved -

That this list template all monarchs from Alfred to Elizabeth II, and Template:Scottish monarchs cover rulers of Scotland up to 1707. I do this on the basis that the supposed "equality" of the union was a transparent fiction, for reasons I expressed above, because 1707 is not an especially important date in English history, and because a common list of English and British monarchs from Alfred (or Egbert) to the present is how such lists are normally done. Thoughts? john k (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you may disagree with GoodDay, but he seems generally civil and I don't see the need to try to exclude him from debate. I really don't want to get into some lengthy debate about the creation of the UK, and I share some of your (revisionist) ideas, but I would just like to see the new template in use without being rapidly altered. 1707 was a significant date in the governance of Britain, as for the first time MPs from all over Great Britain were represented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and England and Scotland ceased to exist as sovereign entities. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely my argument is not revisionist at all, but the traditional picture that is given of what happened in 1707. 1707 is obviously significant in English history, but the Glorious Revolution in 1688-9 and the Hanoverian Succession in 1714 are pretty clearly more significant dates in English history, and have always been treated as such. It was a far more significant event in Scottish history. As far as GoodDay, perhaps I was unclear. I have no intention of excluding him from debate. He is welcome to continuing to express his opinion, and if he has anything new to say, I'm happy to read it and consider it. His opinion in a straw poll is obviously worth as much as anybody else's. But continuing to try to make actual arguments to refute him is pointless, because he doesn't listen to them. He's made up his mind, and will continue to repeat platitudes until he gets his way. I will be happy to admit my error in the event that he actually wants to engage in persuasive argument beyond what he's already said. john k (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as the 1707 Act merged England & Scotland (and thus their monarchies), that's a fact. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. We should definitely reinstate the post-1707 monarchs, it is ridiculous to exlude them, because doing so ignores the essential continuity of the state. And I note, incidentally, that no one has objected to the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland remaining on this list, when precisely identical arguments could be marshalled for its exclusion. Yes, the events of 1707 were a merger - otherwise known as a corporate takeover - but to pretend that it was a merger of equals is a travesty of history. ðarkuncoll 21:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway I've restored the full list. ðarkuncoll 22:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? We've got Template: English, Scottish and British monarchs. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because to exclude the post-1707 monarchs is wrong. And I notice someone has added the Picts to that one too - are you going to add the Bretwaldas? How big and unwieldy should it be? ðarkuncoll 22:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it aint & you are free to add the Bretwaldas to the Englis, Scottish and British monarchs template. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) There's another option (of course): 4 seperate Templates for Pictish, Scottish, English & British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, guys. England conqured Scotland & the United Kingdom today is actually Greater England. Feel free to fuse the English & British monarchs together & exclude the Scottish monarchs (that goes for both the templates & the 'list of monarchs' articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I added the Picts becuae of discussion at Template: Pictish and Scottish Monarchs which stated that the Picts and Scots could not be discriminaated between in the manner the template had before. I advocate replacing this template with Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs, possibly removing te Picts and adding no other monarchs. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"also ruler of Ireland"

Even with the disputedness, isn't it a little much to say that Jane Grey was "also ruler of Ireland"? In retrospect, she has never been considered to be the de jure queen, and she wasn't the de facto queen of much more than London. By the time Ireland even could have learned about Edward VI's death, Mary would have been firmly in control in London, no? I know it's just a footnote, but it seems particularly dubious. john k (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, Matilda, Henry the Young King, Jane & Philip should be deleted from this template, List of English monarchs and List of Irish monarchs. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She was "Queen of Ireland" as much as she was "Queen of England", in that she claimed that territory as part of her royal style. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 15:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Old Pretender was king in the same sense as that, but he's not listed. And by that logic she was "also ruler of France." Whatever status Jane has on this list it has to be from her de facto authority, not any supposed de jure claim, which was much more dubious than that of the Old Pretender, whom we do not include. Jane's de facto authority was effectively limited to London. As such, she was never "ruler of Ireland." In general, though, I agree with Good Day (astonishing, I know!) - all of the marginal rulers ought to be removed from the template. john k (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a significant number of historians who recognize a "marginal ruler" as ruler, then the template should include that person. The template is less useful when it is less inclusive. That, however, doesn't mean that British monarchs should be added to a template called "English monarchs". Surtsicna (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The essential legal fact is that if a monarch is legitimate, no matter how short his reign it encompasses all his territory, even if they didn't get to hear about it. We seem to have some sort of absurd notion that Jane's authority was limited to just London, as if monarchical right was some sort of energy, slowly moving outwards from an epicentre. The fact of the matter is that Jane was proclaimed monarch by the privy council, and under the prevailing law at the time, that made her monarch. ðarkuncoll 23:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for discussing Jane's status. If I were to push my POV here, I'd say that Jane needs to be removed because I do not believe that Divine Right of Kings overrides Acts of Parliament. I do not believe she was de iure queen (Mary I being designated heir by an Act of Parliament) and I do not believe she was de facto queen either (her father-in-law being the true ruler during her "reign"). However, Wikipedia is not place for anyone's POV, let alone mine; there are scholars which consider her a legitimate ruler, so Jane has to be included. Same for the other "marginal rulers".Surtsicna (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether she should be listed as having "also ruled over Ireland" should, I think depend on the facts. Was she ever recognized in Ireland? Did the Lords Justices proclaim her in Dublin? There should have to be evidence of such before we say she ruled Ireland. john k (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is why I don't do modern history, there are no debates arising from the treatment of a past society's law and technicalities as present fact. We have the distinction between nominal ruler and actual ruler. If Jane is an actual and nominal ruler, put her on the list; if she is merely nominal according to some set of customs at the time, well, that's fascinating and all, but it doesn't make her a monarch. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If she is merely nominal according to some set of customs at the time, well, that's fascinating and all, but it doesn't make her a monarch. Unfortunatly, it is not that easy. For example, Henry VI's wife deserves to be on the list of de facto English monarchs more than he does. John I of France was undisputably king de iure, but he reigned as a baby and died as a baby, so he was hardly a de facto monarch. The problem with Jane is that some scholars recognize her as nominal monarch, while others don't; at the same time, nobody would recognize her as actual ruler since the power was in the hands of her father-in-law.Surtsicna (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]