This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Scottish Royalty This template is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scottish Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Scottish RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyScottish royalty articles

Magnificent, now that's what I call an inclusive Template. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain to me why King of Picts is included in this Template? Jack forbes (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pictish monarchs were (one of the) predecessors to the Scottish monarchs. The Scottish monarchs were (one of the) predecessors to the British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out, the Kingdom of Northumbria among other Kingdoms was also a predecessor. Why are they not all included? It wouldn't be because some people always want to link Scotland with Britain even when it wasn't, is it? I do hope there are no ulterior motives for this action. I object to the inclusion of the Kingdom of Scotland and Kings of Picts to this Template. Jack forbes (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northumbria, Wessex, Essex, Strathclyde ect. This template is only 'bout 2 days old, it gonna take awhile to get all entries. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel completely run down by those who continually chip away at anything Scottish on wikipedia. It is like a drip drip effect which is eroding any desire I have to be here. Forget my objection, I'll just stay away. Jack forbes (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Kingdom of Scotland & Kingdom of England merged in 1707, to become the Kingdom of Great Britain, which merged with the Kingdom of Ireland in 1800, to become the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which with the independance of Ireland (state) in 1927, became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Again, what's the opposition? GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do as you please. I don't have the desire to argue. Jack forbes (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the Picts could be removed without detriment, Kenneth is the first traditional king of a united Scotland. There were kings of Pictland who were also kings of Dalraida, but I think it's unnecessary to get into details on a navigation template. Starting from around 850 on both England and Scotland monarchs seems fair and justifiable, and avoids the need to rename the template "Pictish, Scottish, English and British monarchs"! DrKiernan (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The determination by some editors to force the Pictish & Scottish monarchs together? baffles me. Not to mentions the editors who prefer sticking the English & British monarchs together, excluding the Scottish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it looks like we're agreed. DrKiernan (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently it's English, then Scottish, then British. I recommend we order them by the year of its beginnning (as currently reckoned in small text). What say we? DBD 12:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured 'alphabetical order' was the way to go. But, I'm not picky. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By year, is cool too. GoodDay (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be ordered by the year, not alphabet. Easier to follow.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say, this new template sux. "Kenneth MacAlpin", king of the Picts, lived in the mid-9th century, and is no more a predecessor of Elizabeth I than Amlaíb Cuarán, king of Northumbria, Gruffydd ap Cynan, king of Gwynedd, or Niall Glúndub, king of Ireland. Utter pc nonsense giving undue weight to the Pictish/Scottish monarchy, producing a clunky and ugly template. The old one was far superior. If this is what we're gonna get by changing, then please move it back to the old template. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the umpteenth time. The Scottish & English monarchies are equally predecessors of the British monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this fatuous point has been responded to umpteen times, and since I don't recall you ever grasping the points made, I won't bother repeating them. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If ya wanna remove the Picts & the Northumbrian etc, it's your choice. But, leave the Scottish & English in the template. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has become quite tiresome - at any rate, I'm going to at least remove the rulers before Donald II, who was the first to be called King of Scotland. john k (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the triming down of this Template. Just don't go back to 'English and British'. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've performed a history merge to fix the out of process deletion that took place. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks much better (congrats to you & JK). I was gonna suggest changing the Template name to 'British Isles monarchs', but I guess we all know the storm that would cause. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just the former name of the template. I have no opinion about its validity other than it's a might less clumsy that the new name and doesn't prejudice the template to include pre-1707 monarchs of any kind. My opinion on that is either only have pre-1707 English monarchs or have no monarchs before 1707 at all, the way it was for years. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if we're going with the pc bs, we need a section for Irish monarchs too. "Also ruler of Ireland" doesn't cut it, as legally Ireland was as much a separate kingdom as Scotland. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya can split the Template 4-ways if ya like. Have 'Template: English monarchs', 'Template: Scottish monarchs', 'Template: Irish monarchs', 'Template: British monarchs'. Tharky though, creats a stink when ya's put the Picts & the Scottish together. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, if you'd care to spend a fraction of the time you have spent typing assertions on the topic reading that talk page, you wouldn't be doing the former. Tharky in any case has a good argument for merging the English and British monarchs (but not the Scots or Irish) which has nothing to do with that, and where incidentally he was supported by both John and I. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current Template is a compromise between us. Afterall, England & Scotland were rested/rests on the island of Great Britain, before & after 1707. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The United Kingdom does not just include Great Britain, but [now only part of] Ireland as well as thousands of other islands. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I'm content with the current Template. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just cut all the duplicate clunk and taken it back to the long-standing version, so that won't be necessary. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the English & British monarchs have seperate Templates (as the Scottish have theirs)? I'm content. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've unmerged the histories of these two pages: "Template:British monarchs" and "Template: English, Scottish and British monarchs". To undo an "out-of-process deletion" one simply undeletes the page rather than merging it with another one. It is traditional to consult the administrator performing the original act before undoing it. DrKiernan (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Deacon. Howabout reverting your change & then make the monarch lists collapsable. That way we keep all the monarchs there & simultaneously make the Template less bulky. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this template has several problems: (1) it's too complicated; (2) the same pages are listed more than once; (3) there are too many footnotes detailing exceptions or extras; and (4) overall it's more decorative than useful. I'd like to suggest cutting it right back to the essentials. Such as the example below. DrKiernan (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I rather like that. ðarkuncoll 17:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on there buckaroos. England & Scotland did not merge until 1707. I object to this new version, as it gives the wrong impression that James I to William III/II were 'monarchs of Great Britain'. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise: add 'James I to William III' in the England monarchs section & 'James VI to William II' in the Scotland section & then I'll agree to the Union of the Crowns bit. I'm content to allow showing both. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous, because they were all the same people. And they were monarchs of Great Britain, too. If you have a KJV, just look on the title page. ðarkuncoll 00:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anne was the first Monarch of Great Britain and Ireland. James I/VI to Anne (pre-1707) were Monarchs of England, Scotland and Ireland. If you'll keep that 'fact' in the Template, I'll accept the 'Union of the crowns' stuff. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James I was the first monarch of Great Britain. Read any history book. ðarkuncoll 00:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you have successfully moved the James I of England, Charles I of England, Charles II of England, James II of England, Mary II of England & William III of England articles to James I of Great Britain, Charles I of Great Britain, Charles II of Great Britain, James II of Great Britain, Mary II of Great Britain & William III of Great Britain? Then I'll consent to the change here. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. Now please stop trying to disrupt it. Any student of British history knows that 1603 was the crucial year (1707 passed almost unnoticed). In those days monarchs actually ruled, and parliaments were far less important. ðarkuncoll 00:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a request at WP:ROY for more imput. Parliaments were relevant enough back then, as Charles I found out. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the English parliament. The Scottish parliament wasn't even consulted over the execution of its king. Is that what you were trying to say? ðarkuncoll 00:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The English Parliament that rejected James's claims of the title King of Great Britain? PS - When are ya gonna request 'page movement' for those articles I mentioned? GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He used the royal prerogative to assume that title anyway, and over ruled parliament. I'm not going to bother with those page titles, it's the content that's important. Why don't you? ðarkuncoll 00:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you guys got in this Template, contradicts those articles-in-question. I don't want them 'moved'. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay is right. Great Britain did not exist as a realm until 1707, despite James's desires a century earlier; he may have called himself "King of Great Britain", but that didn't make it so. What's more, assuming that all Kings and Queens of England and Scotland from 1603 to 1707 were Kings and Queens of Great Britain assumes that the monarch's wish trumps Parliament and that each of those monarchs held that wish. It is quite simple to separate out the 1603 to 1707 monarchs without completely accepting GoodDay's formatting, so why not do that? -Rrius (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was king of Great Britain. What did he rule, if not that? Look at the royal website for how they divide it up. ðarkuncoll 01:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That website can't retroactively change history. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you attempting to do precisely that? ðarkuncoll 01:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ain't, I'm trying to correct the mistakes 'recently made' on this Template. I'm not responsible for the mistakes on the Royal Website. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciating the difference between the personal union of England and Scotland in 1603 and the political union in 1707 is changing history?—that's just absurd. -Rrius (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) He ruled England, Scotland, and Ireland, as I'm sure you are well aware. The organizational choices of royal.co.uk are not relevant here, especially since that page says "United Kingdom Monarchs (1603–present), which is clearly wrong. If you really believe there was a realm called "Great Britain" from 1603 to 1707, please tell me what its capital was and point me to one law promulgated for it during that period. -Rrius (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its capital was London, where the king resided. One law - well, there are many. How about the law adopting the union flag for the realm? But having uniform law is not the essential criterion for a realm, any more than having a single parliament. ðarkuncoll 01:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, what were all those silly Scots doing up in Edinburgh? Also, the union flag was established by royal decree, correct? Whose ships were those to fly over again? Oh, yes, those of England and Scotland. And when one of the 1603 to 1707 Kings signed the Act of Settlement, what realm's succession was settled? England (along with Ireland and the bullshit claim to France). How many times did the word Britain appear in that document? Hint: it's a circular number. If Great Britain were already a realm in 1706, what the hell happened in 1707? What were the two parliaments that whose acts ratified the Treaty of Union? Were they just pretenders of some sort? Did the realm of Great Britain have any organs of government aside from, as you assure me there was, a monarch? How many peers were created in the Peerage of Great Britain between 1603 and 1707?

Also, what is the point of this bit from the Treaty of Union 1707: "That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN: And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land."?

Great Britain was under a single government - the king - from 1603. What were those Scots doing up in Edinburgh, you ask? They were following the dictates of commissioners appointed by James. What happened in 1707, as you well know, was a union of parliaments. The government had already been unified since 1603. ðarkuncoll 09:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the government of Scotland & the government of England were under their respective monarchs, who happened to be the same person. Eerily similiar to todays commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, Thark, the king was not the entire government. The king appointed entirely separate governments for each. -Rrius (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, your suggestion doesn't make any sense. The Union of the Crowns occurred in 1603 not 1707, and the template does not say "Monarchs of Great Britain". So, you obviously cannot object either on the grounds that the date is wrong or on the grounds that the title is wrong. DrKiernan (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your template doesn't show where England & Scotland merge as Great Britain. Furthermore, the post-1603 monarchs names aren't correct. It's James I/VI, James II/VII, William III/II. There was no Kingdom of Great Britain from 1603 to 1707. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't follow your arguments. They seem disconnected from the template to me. Nowhere does it say "Kingdom of Great Britain", so complaining about its inclusion is moot. The kings just have one numeral for simplicity's sake. Navigation templates are for links to relevant articles, not for explaining details. DrKiernan (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed Template, creates the impression that the 1603-1707 monarchs are 'Monarchs of Great Britain and Ireland', which they weren't. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were monarchs of Ireland and the whole island of Great Britain. You cannot seriously claim that James I didn't rule over the entire islands. DrKiernan (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but James I/VI, Charles I, Charles II, James II/VII, Mary II & William III/II wer not Monarchs of Great Britain and Ireland. That's simply the way it is. PS: let's combine our discussion to the bottom of the talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were monarchs of the entire British Isles. That is an incontestable fact. DrKiernan (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as the Kingdom of the British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did they rule over the entire British Isles? Answer yes or no. DrKiernan (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not as a single entity, no. England and Scotland continued to have separate laws. -Rrius (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way folks, I've sources for my argument. It's the external links for the Acts of Union 1707 article. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have sources for my argument. They're in history books. If you look in one, you'll see that the Union of the Crowns happened in 1603. DrKiernan (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that James claimed he & his descendants were monarchs of Great Britain from 1603. I'm saying that there was 'no' Kingdom of Great Britain from 1603 to 1707. Sorry Jimmy Rex, you can't be King of a Kingdom that didn't exist. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has ever said that there was a "Kingdom of Great Britain" between 1603 and 1707, and the template does not say that. As I said, your argument is moot because you are arguing over something that is not there. DrKiernan (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it gives the impression of that. I've atleast two others editors here, who agree with me. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Thark did say just that, DrK. -Rrius (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a list of persons, and gives no false impression whatsoever. It's your proposal that would give a false impression, namely the England and Scotland were still ruled by different people from 1603 onwards. Such an impression would be wholly untrue and misleading. ðarkuncoll 16:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does so give the impression that James I/VI to William III/II were 'monarchs of Great Britain and Ireland', which is the wrong impression. Now, that Template was stable for months, please change it back to that stable (more accurate) version. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. You've failed to provide any justification for doing so, and there is a justification for changing the old template. It repeated links and included details which are unnecessary for a navigation template. Navboxes are there to provide links between related articles, not to look pretty, go into details, and repeat the same link over and over again. There is nothing wrong with the current version. DrKiernan (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is something wrong with it. Rrius, Jeanne & myself have pointed it out, the current Template gives the impression that James I(VI) to William III(II) are 'Monarchs of Great Britain and Ireland'. That's an inaccurate impresssion. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne hasn't contributed here, and if you run to her for support, you'd be guilty of canvassing. DrKiernan (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it says no such thing. And secondly, they were monarchs of GB&I. It's your proposal that would create the highly misleading impression that England and Scotland were ruled by different people after 1603. ðarkuncoll 17:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were not monarchs of Great Britain and Ireland, as there was no Kingdom of Great Britain from 1603 to 1707. The majority agrees with me, please change the Template back. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. There was time for talking, and the new consensus was this one. And simply repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true. Who ruled Great Britain in the period in question? ðarkuncoll 17:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the majority is on my side, thus no consensus for DrK's Template. There was no 'Kingdom of Great Britain' from 1603 to 1707. There were the Kingdoms of England and Scotland during that time, though. The Parliaments had the final say, not Jimmy Rex & his descendants, a fact that Charles I found out, the hard way. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have a majority. DrKiernan (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For most of the period it was the kings who had the final say. Please stop trying to impose your POV on this article. ðarkuncoll 17:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Res) to DrK. I do have a majority at this discussion & I've not intentions of canvassing Jeanne (or anybody). (Res to Tharky), I'm waiting for you to proove your theory of my alleged PoV, by atleast putting 'King/Queen of Great Britain' in the related monarchs-in-question articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken GoodDay. Only four of us have commented so far, and two of those are in favour of the change. DrKiernan (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, Jeanne hasn't commented here. Having acknowledge this, you're the proposer for change & you've yet to get a consensus for that change. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lowering the bar: Gentlemen unless & until you both can add King/Queen of Great Britain to introduction content at the 'monarch articles in question' & change the 1707 date to 1603 at the Kingdoms-in-question articles - you won't win me over to your side. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The new template doesn't use those phrases, so why would we want to impose them somewhere else when we are already agreed not to use them here? DrKiernan (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new Template gives the impression that James I/VI to William III/II were Monarchs of Great Britain. That's the wrong impression, as there was no Kingdom of Great Britain during that time. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct (technically), Jeanne has commented at Tharky's page. PS: I could ask her to give her neutral comments here, if you'd like. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If I contacted Jeanne, in a neutral way, it wouldn't be a breach of WP:CANVASS. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It keeps being repeated that somehow there would be an impression that England and Scotland were ruled by different people. That is not at all necessary. Instead of saying just "Union of Crowns" and listing everyone from James I to Elizabeth II, either add "Acts of Union 1707" or change "Union of Crowns" to "Monarchs of England and Scotland" and add "Monarchs of Great Britain" or "of the United Kingdom". -Rrius (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the current version is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it's technically possible to do that in a columnated navbox and retain the same style as now, i.e. two columns above a single column. Can you provide a mock-up of your version on the talk page? DrKiernan (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The onus on getting a consensus, falls on the proposers for change (i.e. Tharky & DrK). I've yet to see that consensus & until it's achieved? the template must be reverted to it's previous status. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, where was the consensus to change the Template? If nobody can provide it, I'll request an administrator to 'revert' its previous status. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, nobody has canvassed me, and if they had I would reply that my opinion is not for bartering. I never let friendships, bloodties, or politics interfere with my opinions on issues. My thoughts have not altered one iota since I last posted on Tharkuncoll's talkpage. The British monarchy did not come into existance until 1707, the Union of the Crowns notwithstanding. James I may have styled himself as King of Great Britain, but he was no more a British monarch than Henry VIII was a King of France.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does this make clear the statuses of England and Scotland between 1603 and 1707, it also avoids the reduplications of names and the adding of unnecessary headers. It also, may I add, reflects the reality of history - GB was indeed run as a single effective polity from 1603 (albeit with different and varying internal arrangements in its different areas), with the government vested in a single monarch. ðarkuncoll 11:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This still gives the impression that the Kingdoms unified in 1603, instead of 1707. We have to add James to Anne in the English & again in the Scottish sections. Then have Anne to Elizabeth II under the bottom section. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that duplicates links. I think we should continue working towards some wording of the final header. How about the simple "Monarchs since 1603"? DrKiernan (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, 1707 has to be the merging point. There's nothing wrong with double linking, as we'are only talking about 'seven' individuals (PS: Anne would be triple-linked). GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the merging point is clearly 1603. How about the more complicated header "Monarchs of England and Scotland since 1603, Great Britain since 1707, and the United Kingdom since 1801". DrKiernan (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1603, simply can't be the merging point. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight: You disagree with a heading of the final section that says: "Monarchs of England and Scotland since 1603, Great Britain since 1707, and the United Kingdom since 1801"? DrKiernan (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it needn't be quite so complicated as we could combine the UK or GB parts either into one GB bit or one UK bit. DrKiernan (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the merging is shown as starting at 1707 with Anne, the UK is an acceptable usage for a section heading. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The heading would be Monarchs of Great Britain, Great Britain and Ireland and United Kingdom. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of having the break at 1603 is to avoid double and triple linking, mentioning the same group of individuals 3 or 4 times and confusing everyone. This, for me, is the non-negotiable point. I don't really care so much what the wording is on the headers, though I would suggest keeping it as simple as possible. GB is acceptable right up to the present, in my opinion, as it still forms part of the monarch's title.

GoodDay, the wording now makes clear that England and Scotland were in personal union until 1707 (though acknowledges that the monarch's title was King of Great Britain), so what's the problem? Without duplicating names, can you offer an even better - though still concise - wording? ðarkuncoll 16:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1603 can't be the merging point, the fact is that England & Scotland (2 seperate kingdoms) had each their own monarch, who happened to be the same person. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the whole point - it's not that they just happened to have the same monarch and were otherwise completely unaffected - they were, of course, profoundly affected. Are you sure you're not thinking it terms of Canada and the UK, with the same monarch? It wasn't like that at all. In those days the monarch was the executive, and formed the most important and powerful element in government. The whole of Great Britain was governed by the same executive from 1603 onwards. Furthermore, the concept of what a "state" constitutes is a relatively modern idea, and wasn't so applicable in the 17th century. Read any history book and you'll see that 1603 was the turning point in the evolution of the union. 1707 passed virtually unnoticed - but in typically British fashion, it took them a century to tidy up this loose end. ðarkuncoll 16:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

England & Scotland were 'seperate' Kingdoms until May 1707, that's a fact which should be represented properly in the proposed template. James I/VI throught Anne (pre-1707) were likewise 'monarchs of England' & 'monarchs of Scotland' seperately, a fact that must be represented properly in the proposed template. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were monarchs of England and Scotland, but hardly "seperately", considering their unified administration. The fact is represent very well indeed in my proposed template above - can you improve on the wording? Furthermore, Wikipedia is built on authoritative sources. And what better source than the horse's mouth, as it were. The British monarchy itself acknowledges 1603 as the crucial turning point [1]. You may poopoo that as a source, but in doing so you would be violating Wikipedia policy. Remember that this is a list of people, not states. ðarkuncoll 16:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the English & Scottish Parliaments decided not to merge in 1603. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying the same thing over and over again. No one is disputing your facts, merely the weight you attach to them. The government was merged in 1603, and that's the crucial turning point in British history. Read any history book. Parliaments were far less important. It's true that they gradually became more important as the century progressed (well, the English one anyway), and just at the point when Parliaments became more important than the monarch - hey presto, they merged. This is no historical accident GoodDay, but is part of an obvious and very clear process. ðarkuncoll 17:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry put those 'sources' at Acts of Union 1707, say tha the Kingdom of England & the Kingdom of Scotland merged in 1707. Again, would you be willing to put your argument on the related articles-in-question I've mentioned earlier. Currently, those articles-in-question content are in-line with my argument. I'd be happy to bring your views to those articles on your behalf, noting it's your argument. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing, you mean? In fact, there's nothing wrong with those articles, because they accurately describe their subject matter. This template, on the other hand, is a list of people, not a list of states. If it were the latter, we would have to make a new heading for every state, including, say, Ireland, or Normandy, or the Isle of Man, etc. (not to mention the Commonwealth realms). This is not what the template is for. Its purpose is to list the monarchs in question, as clearely and concisely as possible. ðarkuncoll 17:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, your argument here has been: the Kingdoms of England & Scotland merged in 1603 under one monarch, to back up the proposed Template (which doesn't have consensus). In effect, that stance would demands changes to Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland & Kingdom of Great Britain articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never said any such thing. I said their governments were merged in 1603. You're still thinking in rigid, black and white terms that simply don't apply to the period in question. Please don't put words into my mouth. And in any case your argument is specious because one Wikipedia article can't be used to back up or call into question another. Anyway, I'm off out now. ðarkuncoll 17:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article-in-qeustion has sources that back me up. You've yet to convince of this 1603 merging. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing that the same person ruled two states, but it is only necessary to link them once. DrKiernan (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not gonna hurt to link'em twice or thrice, as we're talking about 'seven' individuals. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The method I mentioned would not have required double linking anyone but Anne, and GoodDay's latest proposal requires no double linking whatsoever. How about it? -Rrius (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going from the edit summaries, the above compromise is not GD's, but Tharky's (I haven't read most of today's installment of the discussion, and don't plan to). In any event, I support the compromise version as it conforms to standard navbox style and is more compact than the old one. -Rrius (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that their governments did not merge; that happened in 1707. Each continued to be governed under its own system and its own laws until 1707. There were no laws of Great Britain and the monarch did not appoint officials of Great Britain. In neither country was it true that the king was the sum total of the government, so the union in one person of the crowns of each did mean the union of their governments. Charles I seemed to think it did, but that didn't go very well for him, did it? -Rrius (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or by the time you've finished with them, 21. ðarkuncoll 17:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that 'nobody' complained for months about the previous Template. A proposal of change backed by 2-editors doesn't make it a consensus, just because no objections came forth for 'bout 3 days. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this template include English and Scottish monarchs anyway when it's only used on post-1707 rulers? Wouldn't adding links to the template do just as well, or am I missing something blindingly obvious? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cuz the Template is named English, Scottish and British monarchs. The merging point should be 1707 (not 1603). GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, indeed it is, but forget silly names. It's used as a Greatbritainish and Unitedkingdomish rulers template. Why should pre-1707 (or pre-1603, but Scotland and England weren't always ruled, de facto, by the same persons in the period 1603-1707) rulers appear there? It's not quite as odd as, say, putting Maria Theresa on a Belgian rulers template, or Philip II on the Netherlands one, but it's still somewhat strange. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting the English, Scottish and British monarchs template (no matter what ther version) be deleted? GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Cuz we've got seperately Template: English monarchs, Template: Pictish and Scottish monarchs & Template: British monarchs. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys can remove the 1603 stuff & replace it with the correct 1707 stuff, I'd accept the newer looking template. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the changes Tharky. It still uses 1603 as the merging point, which is wrong. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. Not an opinion shared by the British monarchy itself, nor any history book on the period. ðarkuncoll 00:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, ya ought to revert back, as Rockpocket suggested no 'changes' until discussion ends. Besides, you've still 'no consensus'. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. ðarkuncoll 00:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the style your & DrK have chosen, but the 1603/1707 merge dispute, continues to be the logjam. By excepting the new style, I'm being flexible; now it's your guys turn to be flexible & agree to use 1707 as the merging date. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. The whole point of the style was to avoid the reduplication of names. The essential point about British history from 1603 is that Britain was governed by the same person. Please do some historical reading. ðarkuncoll 00:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the umpteenth time, there was no Kingdom of Great Britain from 'March 1603 to May 1707', therefore no Monarchs of Great Britain from 'March 1603 to May 1707'. The proposed template should reflect this fact, which it has yet to do. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for the umpteenth time, please stop saying the same thing over and over again. You are causing untold disruption. ðarkuncoll 01:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are the disruptive one, sir. You continue to claim that the Kingdom of Great Britain came into being in 1603 & continue to reflect this in your template proposal. Seeing as we're never going to agree on this topic, I recomemend we both stand back & allow others to figure something out. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you many, many times to stop putting words into my mouth. There was no Kingdom of Great Britain in 1603, but there was a King of Great Britain from that date. What is it that you're not comprehending here? ðarkuncoll 01:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no Kings/Queens of Great Britain 1603 to 1707. There was King/Queens of England & Kings/Queens of Scotland concurrently from 1603 to 1707. GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true. Do you have a KJV? Look at what James calls himself on the front page. But - and here's the thing - if they were monarchs concurrently, to use your phrase, why do we need to list them 3 times? Actually, don't bother answering unless you've got something new to say. I'm going to bed. ðarkuncoll 01:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No one is disputing that King James called himself "King of Great Britain". What is disputed is whether his saying that means anything. GD, I, and the respective parliaments of England and Scotland say no. You and James say yes. Our side says that, as there was no Kingdom of Great Britain, it could not have had a king. Your side says that whatever the political reality was, James had a reserve power to call himself the King of Europe if he'd wanted to. Whatever the merits of that argument, it is not clear that all of the Stuart kings claimed to be "King of Great Britain". What's more, your initial proposal failed to deal with the fact that there is ambiguity created by treating all post-1603 monarchs the same. I'm glad that you've recognised that, at the very least, other editors perceive that ambiguity, so have dealt with it. I think GD wants to make a counter-proposal, so we'll see where this goes. -Rrius (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, on atleast 2 occassions, somebody(ies) requested that James I of England be moved to 'James I of Great Britain' (for example). On both occassions the request was shot down. Would you explain the reason for this, Tharky? Remember, the onus is on you to convince me. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or what? You'll carry on disrupting this page till you get your way? It is Wikipedia policy that no page can be used as a source for another. Nothing you say about any other page can have any bearing here. ðarkuncoll 01:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page in question has reliable sources. GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're the disruptor. You're the one with no consensus for your proposals. Also, aren't you forgetting another title James & his Stuart successors claimed? GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case, that other claimed title was Monarch of France. Are you gonna add those too? afterall Edward III of England through to George III of the United Kingdom claimed it & the corresponding Kingdom existed throughout most of that time, too. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly, GD is offering up the naming dispute at James I of England as an analogy, not a source. Both of you are arguing about who is the disruptive one. How about we all just take a step back and discuss the differences over the look-and-feel issues, then come back to categorisation? -Rrius (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Rrius, Tharky's constantly calling me disruptive & stubborn (at Rock's page) tends to get slightly annoying. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked administrator Rockpocket to revert the template to its previous version (while the discussion is on), as there was no consensus to change it. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I not make that request? Obviously, if I revert (which would be correct) it'll only get reverted back. It's best to avoid an edit war. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not announce it here, then? ðarkuncoll 17:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to, you announced for me (which I agree with). Anyways, if Rock decides not to revert during the discussion, I won't dispute him. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I've requested input from Wikipedia: WikiProject English Royalty, Wikipedia: WikiProject Scottish Royalty & Wikipedia: WikiProject British Royalty as it concerns them too. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the request on my talk page. I'm afraid I don't really understand the subtleties of the dispute, which means I have no opinion on which version should prevail. However, two supports and two opposes isn't much of a consensus either way. If a compromise cannot be reached among you, I strongly suggest some external (and preferably expert) opinions are requested and their advice be followed. Until that time, I would urge everyone to stop revert-warring over it. Whatever version is current from now can remain until agreement is reached (albeit with no presumption of favor). Rockpocket 00:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I disagree with the current (less then a week-old) version, I shall respect your opinon & shant revert, while the discussion continues. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive the roughness folks, but yas get the general idea. Thanks Rrius, for helping me get this proposed template in place. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's ridiculous, redundant and confusing listing a bunch of people 2 or 3 times. ðarkuncoll 08:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, a * (star) by their names & explaining that the * means same person will clarify further. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal separates the 1603-to-1707 period from the period thereafter without duplicating links (aside from Anne, who is repeated just as James I/IV is:

Comments? -Rrius (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks lopsided. If you can do the last two sections as headers, I might consider it. ðarkuncoll 08:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go for it! ðarkuncoll 13:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, it covers all but one concern. We should have in the English, Scottish section their names shown as - James I/VI, James II/VII, William III/II? We must respect the Scottish regnal numerials. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: We could also have James I-VI, James II-VII & William III-II. Afterall, we don't want to accidently give the impression that the English monarchy & the Scottish monarchy weren't equals during 1603 to 1707. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking the same. The convention at the time, and since, is to write it James I & VI and so on (i.e. with an "&" rather than a dash or anything). I've altered it accordingly (though not with William III - yet - do you know any sources calling him "II"?). I've also, incidentally, revoved the anomolous numbers in brackets from the Constantines, which have no justification at all. ðarkuncoll 15:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's one[2] from Norman Davies. DrKiernan (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend using / inplace of & to avoid confusion at William and Mary. I like that the English/Scottish numerials line-up with the above Pre-1603 English & Scottish sections (left side/right side). GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather stick to using the ampersand, as that's what all the reference books use. As for William III, by the way, according to this page he was never called "II" [3]. ðarkuncoll 15:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me guys, one wee question; why is the Commonweath listed when it wasn't a monarchy?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also have interrugnums in Scotland listed, for the same reason. ðarkuncoll 16:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We needed something to explain why the monarchies were abolished, I guess. Please, let's use / to devide the English/Scottish regnal numbers, thus avoiding the cumbersome look at William and Mary. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the example. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the ampersands bacause (a) that's what all reference books use, and (b) the sloping dash, with all those Is and Vs, is virtually unreadable. I've also removed "II" from William altogether. ðarkuncoll 16:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're so close Tharky, why are you doing this? The usage of / avoids the problem & trust me it's legal to use it. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but it's you who appear to want to use this innovation and try and cause problems, despite all references using the ampersand. All those sloping lines and Vs are unreadable, anyway. ðarkuncoll 16:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're opposing my innovation, because it's my innovation. You're being spiteful & nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the "/" to ",", how's that? GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, ridiculous. ðarkuncoll 16:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like it say so, but don't belittle me. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And to avoid GoodDay's constant niggling - please don't alter it. Justification - ampersands are used in all sources, slashes are never used. Slashes are also unreadable. William III was never called "II". ðarkuncoll 16:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the 'fourth time' you've attacked me personaly, Tharky. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know what you're protesting. You trying to claim that William III of England was never William II of Scotland. Well, I'm sorry but I object to this proposal template. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that isn't true. If a source could be found, I'd be happy with the construction "William III & II and Mary II". Ampersands were used at the time as part of the official nomenclature, and are used in all reference books. And, please do not accuse me of attacking you personally. ðarkuncoll 16:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A source was found by DrK & you rejected it. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Show it me. ðarkuncoll 16:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At 15:32, DrK provided a source to support William II of Scotland. Also, my 1989 F&W Encylopedia supports William II of Scotland. Please, don't ask me to go over there & dig up what's left of William & ask him about his names (humour), as grave decredation is frowned upon. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, doesn't matter. There are enough secondary references to "William III & II" (Google it) to justify its use, and I've changed my proposed template accordingly. ðarkuncoll 16:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, do we have a deal, sir? GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it - you mean with the ampersands? I've also delinked the "and" between William and Mary as it served no real purpose and now, being black, separates the names more clearly. ðarkuncoll

It's a deal, then. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! :) ðarkuncoll 16:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the headings of pre-1603 English monarchs and Scottish monarchs, would it make sense to use the colours established at Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty ?, viz:

• Colours: established colours are:
  • British: #CCBBFF
  • English: #FFBBBB
  • Scottish: #BBBBFF
  • Irish: #BBFFBB

—— Shakescene (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nay, the neutral colors will do. Also, this template doesn't include the Irish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But aren't the neutral colours those of the united monarchy? Or is that just a coincidence? —— Shakescene (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a coincidence, most Templates have that colour. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Before re-editing]

Holy smokers. We forgot the Irish monarchs (1541 to 1800), oh my aching head. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Groundhog Day, Good Day! Would your neuralgia be helped by thoughts of the Principality of Wales (usually listed in reference works such as Whitaker's Almanack)? —— Shakescene (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Wales independance ended in 1280's & since this isn't the Template: English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh and British monarchs, I'd also keep out the Welsh stuff. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, six more days of winter. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the template covers the English, Scottish & British monarchs, not the Irish monarchs. Therefore, we couldn't use 'green', anyway. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the British and Scottish colours so similar? ðarkuncoll 00:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're very confusing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a good reason why the Commonwealth period should be called "Commonwealth" instead of "Interregnum". I see why it should be linked, but when referring to that period, most lists of monarchs appear to refer to it by the latter term. Would anyone mind my changing the displayed text to "Interregnum" without changing the link? -Rrius (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth or Interregnum, either is fine with me. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use terms—such as (purely for example) republic, parliament, Oliver Cromwell and/or Richard Cromwell—that are instantly recognizable by an uninformed, uneducated, non-British general reader who's just fishing around the template to find the Cromwells (or may not even recall what came between the two Charleses)? I'm not against correctness or consistency, but a navigation template is, after all, to help readers of all backgrounds navigate the encyclopaedia, rather than to establish precise titles. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since neither Cromwell was a monarch, we can't use them. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely doubt that people would be fishing around a template called "English, Scottish and British monarchs" for the Cromwells. -Rrius (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That particular interregnum is called the Commonwealth, and that's the name most people expect to find it under. It's like "First" and "Second" interregnum in the Scottish list - names that they're known by. ðarkuncoll 00:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tharkuncoll. Let's stick with Commonwealth as that's what this period in English history is called, never Interregnum.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish history too. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the First and Second Interregnums (Interregna) under Monarchs of Scotland, the Commonwealth (of Great Britain and Ireland) might be a less confusing title for non-specialists. If I were doing this myself, I might relax formality enough in the cause of clarity to preface Commonwealth with a lower-case kingless or uncrowned (or follow Commonwealth with a parenthentical (republic). The more-familiar term from old-fashioned history textbooks is "Commonwealth & Protectorate". —— Shakescene (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protectorate sounds better-and more accurate than Commonwealth. I personally prefer it. What do the others say?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice, except the Protectorate wasn't established until 1653. Before then, from the non-royalist point of view, the sovereign was Parliament itself. However, from 1649 to 1660, the country was called the Commonwealth (of, variously, England; England, Scotland & Ireland; or Great Britain and Ireland). The Instrument of Government of 1653 which established the Protectorate is entitled The government of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging. From the royalist point of view, of course, Charles II's reign began not 350 years ago with the Restoration of 1660, but eleven years earlier, with the death of his father on 30 January 1649. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You explained that very nicely and succintly, Shakescene. Commonwealth then will have to remain for the sake of historical accuracy. A pity though as Cromwell was called the Lord Protector.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might still be room for someone to argue for including the Lords Protectors Oliver and Richard Cromwell individually. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would support that seeing as Richard Cromwell was the second Lord Protector, albeit for less than a year.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Commonwealth. The Cromwells are not listed as monarchs in other encyclopedias or reference works, so I see no validity in us doing so. DrKiernan (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, having looked into it after the above discourse, it seems that someone - whoever compiled the list of Scottish monarchs from which this list is copied - might have been telling fibs. Edward I of England actually became King of Scotland in 1296 [4]. ðarkuncoll 00:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History views him as just an 'over-lord' dangling the vacant Scottish throne infront of the Bailiol & Bruce families. Besides: English, Scottish & British monarchs claimed to be monarchs of France, too. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still get a chuckle at seeing Philip II of Spain listed in the English monarchs section & at List of English monarchs article. Afterall, if he was truly an English sovereign, then he should've remained King of England after his wife death & Elizabeth I shouldn't have succeeded the throne until Philip's death (in 1598). GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree about Philip. He was given the title of "king" simply because no one had invented the term "prince consort" yet. It was an honorific, and did not denote any kind of sovereignty. ðarkuncoll 17:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, William III & II belongs, but Philip's just a King-consort. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since he was called a king though, someone just might be looking for him on this list. He's listed (in brackets) in my Guinness Book of Kings, Rulers & Statesmen. ðarkuncoll 17:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, Philip has to stay. It must've been a Portugese idea, as they give regnal numbers to their King-consorts. Oddily enough, Philip latter became King of Portugal. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that about Portugal - what an odd idea. Still, regnal numbers tend to defy logic more often than not. ðarkuncoll 17:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thanks to the numbering of Castile's King-consort as Ferdinand V of Castile, the Spanish Ferdinands are numbered (at their request) as Ferdinand VI of Spain & Ferdinand VII of Spain, groan. Bad enough to number them after Castiliian monarchs, but a Castillian consort too? GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that's bad, look at the Merovingians. ðarkuncoll 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smelling salts for GoodDay, please. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As GoodDay correctly points out, had Philip of Spain truly been a King of England, he'd have claimed the English throne after Mary's death in 1558; however he did not, nor did the Pope, who regarded Elizabeth as illegitimate, encourage him to press the claim, therefore Philip should not be regarded as an English monarch.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to raise this question once more. The fact is that according to an act of parliament, Philip was the co-ruler of his wife, Queen Mary. There are obvious analogies with Mary and William but the times were different and William's position (also constitutional position) was different. He was invited to come to England and rule with Mary, while Philip was simply married to the Queen but according to the custom at the time, he was deemed to be her co-ruler. Even if he was the co-ruler only in name (indeed, he was...), he should be listed as a monarch without a doubt. There are numerous primary sources in which they acted jointly as co-sovereigns, such as letters patent. All acts of parliament bore their names.Kowalmistrz (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The acts of Mary I's first year, 1553-1554, are entitled "Mary"; those after her marriage to Philip are entitled "Philip and Mary". At least some coins show both of their heads, not just Mary's. In G.R. Elton's The Tudor Constitution (Cambridge 1960), page 69, the First Treason Act of Mary, 1553 is cited as 1 Mary st. 1, c. 1, while the Second Treason Act of Mary, 1554 is cited as 1 & 2 Philip & Mary, c. 10. Philip & Mary and William & Mary, but not, in the statute books, George & Anne, Albert & Victoria, Victoria & Albert or Philip & Elizabeth. Had there been a surviving child of Philip and Mary's marriage, it would have been by right King or Queen of both England and Spain. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this would become a hornet's nest if Ireland was even paid attention to, but then again, underrepresentation is just as likely a cause for anger on their part. Go figure. Also, this table makes no indication of Continental and/or Imperial/Commonwealth dominions held by monarchs. What of the line back to Egbert and Offa, or even indeed, of the pre-Migration Anglo-Saxons and Jutes? Care to venture adding the Pictish line, or kings of the Scots in Argyle? What of the Kings of the Britons or High Kings of Ireland? Hah! 70.171.236.188 (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're content with what's currently in the template. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that we should indeed go back to the kings of the Angles on the Continent - though I know it'll never wash. Even though somehow the Pictish monarchs were tacked onto the Scottish template. As for Ireland though, the situation was not the same. Ireland was not a sovereign state - it was always a dependency of the English/British crown. ðarkuncoll 00:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland was always a dependancy of the English/British crown?????!!!!! Tharkuncoll, Ireland was a nation made up of separate kingdoms ruled by a High King when Strongbow and his Cambro-Norman army invaded it in 1169, complete with Papal blessings. Didn't Ireland exist before the advent of the Norman invasion or did it just magically arise from out of the mists like Avalon, the ramparts of its castles loyally flying the banner of St. George?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol - I meant of course after it became one. ðarkuncoll 13:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lords of Mann? Seigneurs of Jersey, Guernsey and Sark? —— Shakescene (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes TharkunColl (and to GoodDay), at least go back to Hengist and Horsa (if not earlier) to show the primacy of Kent and the Jutland origins, whether heathen for their time or Christian much later. Even Americans, in a period of rebellious and fundamentalist Anglo-Saxonism, had/have a reverence for them and planned to make the Great Seal feature them when the idea of a coat of arms had been in play during the 1780s. This coat of arms (stressing e pluribus unum) had England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany and Holland. Obviously, this was passed over for a neoclassical design and Canada was left to pick up the pieces after Confederation, but America still bears a bastardised Union Jack (more progressive than the Hawaii/Sandwich Islands flag), whereas Canada threw out the Red Ensign under Pearson, an Irish Canadian. Jeanne, that was hilarious!

Yes Shakescene, the Lords of Mann count but not the Dukes of Normandy, for that is only ducal titulary and never was royal, despite kings holding Normandy and would invite too many ducal titles represented. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about royal symbols, coat-of-arms etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lox, the USA turned its back on its origins in the 1770s. Canada has never done that. British people are always going to favour those that remain loyal. ðarkuncoll 00:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I make no claims about political loyalties, only about cultural influences. Surely you are interested in the Hengist and Horsa intrigue and how Jefferson claimed to be fighting for the rights of his Saxon ancestors. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I am already familiar with it. ðarkuncoll 10:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Thomas Jefferson primarily of Welsh ancestry?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having just checked, it seems his mother's family was of English and his father's of Welsh descent. ðarkuncoll 12:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks TharkunColl.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course TharkunColl, also, the nature of "loyalty" is fine when Frenchmen and Indians are subject to our garrison and otherwise allowed freedoms which are denied Englishmen. That is how Canada remained loyal to a corrupt Hanoverian establishment (Stuart Whigs who were Hanoverian Tories playing a flip-flop game with principles and the Crown) and those such as Jefferson remained more loyal by not selling his soul for power. So George consoles himself with New France and pacifies Old France in his titles. For a true folkist, the submission of Canada into the body politic of the United States is the assimilation of the French into Englishness. This proviso is still an official invitation of the U.S. Constitution, as that for NZ into AU remains. No sprinkling or veneer of royal garrisons can do the same as the general populace, whose very origins were wont to maintain their own folkishness despite the privations of foreign despots. I'm surprised at this position by you TharkunColl. You value foreign loyalty to a foreign dynasty against the protests of domestics charged with spreading England in the world, who resign themselves to self-rule as opposed to such utter corruption. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Hanoverians were only on the throne because Parliament put them there, after booting out the Francophile, Catholic Stuarts. Parliament is sovereign. And besides - unlike Georges I & II who really were still German - George III genuinely identified with the English. The rest is just excuses I'm afraid. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and the rest committed high treason and damaged British interests, and deserved to hang. As for the invitation to Canada, the USA tried to apply that "invitation" by invading it in 1812 - unsuccessfully, I might add. It's estimated that at least a third of the inhabitants of the USA moved to Canada after the Revolution because they wanted to remain loyal. Today, Canada retains the Queen as its head of state, has a much fairer and better standard of life than the USA, and is regarded with close affection by all Britons. I assure you, it made the right decision. ðarkuncoll 18:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll refactor some of that. With the Conquest of New France, it was supposed to be along the lines of what was done with Arcadia in the Maritimes, but toleration and state support for the French establishment remained a higher priority than the "parliamentary" issues and concerns of the colonists who went unrepresented for all their service to both King and Country. Sure, the Hanoverians became native in a sense. When they took over the Isle of Mann from purchase, there was no native contender for that land. So, in a sense, with the absence of the native dynasty, they slipped into the royal slippers after 1745 or so, without undue controversy. Sure, it is good to see that they won dominion over the New French and defied Napoleon, but at the expense of the New English and war over the safety of Brunswick at the peril of the Old English? Come on...the colonial charters 'from sea to shining sea' were cut well short of El Dorado by Parliament (not even the French or Spanish governments were so cruel to their own people, but the opposite), while colonists were still expected to swallow either Anglican or Congregational establishment. Sure, there was Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and New Jersey for religious freedom, but no official recognition, despite the fact that both the French and Spaniards, of New France and Florida, had their Church recognised for the sake of "peace" which was not a prospect for the people of England. To do dealings with savages at the expense of England and those who suffer for England is treason, so who is loyal and patriotic then? 70.171.236.188 (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP:70.171.236.188, are you proposing to add/delete something from this template? Otherwise, you're blogging (which is a no-no at Wikipedia's talkpages). -- GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'll be done soon. This is relevant to the discussion on Cromwell, because for all of his idiocy, he was a patriot and ruler of England. Whatever spiritual successor he had was in America, whilst the Imperial Commonwealth stems from the Williamite settlement, which outsourced the establishment to foreigners, even though it had been in the hands of natives for quite some time, regardless of their religious or political inclinations. If it was wrong for Philip Habsburg to be King of England as an unwelcome foreigner, then so too was it wrong for graft to stipulate that it was just and proper for foreigners to hold the Monarchy forever as a court of aliens in England, whether they call themselves Saxe-Coburg-Gotha or Windsor. A name change fools nobody. England's patriots and loyalists would benefit most from the succession in heirs male of Lady Jane Grey had that happened, to no despoilment under others or even derangement by Cromwell, himself English. If that succession had happened, there would be no America in schism today. It is a small consolation that Edward abdicated for an American scion of English self-determination, self-rule and other freedoms. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move it to my talk page if you want. But the fact remains that the Revolutionaries were traitors, getting into bed with the French. They should - and easily could have - agitated for representation through legal channels - they had many, many supporters in Parliament. ðarkuncoll 18:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO TharkunColl, most of the American Revolutionaries were Jacobites; they hated Hanoverian rule, not monarchy in general. Remember the colony of Virginia, where many of the patriots came from, was mainly settled by Royalists and minor English gentry, not Puritans.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard that one before - do you have any sources? But if that were the case, why didn't they invite Charles Edward Stuart to become their king? Was it ever even considered? If they were Jacobites, someone would have at least suggested it. Rather than being Jacobites, they appear to have been far more inspired, if anything, by the example of Cromwell - certainly, they copied a number of his innovations, such as having a written constitution, etc. ðarkuncoll 09:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just my personal opinion, I don't claim it to have been a fact. Somehow I cannot ever imagine Charles Edward Stuart as King of the United States of America! Of course, the name of the country would have been changed to something more regal-sounding, or perhaps classically-Greek, like the Milanese did with their short-lived Ambrosian Republic; yet again, they might have just called the entire kingdom Virginia. LOL, this is merely another example of alternative history.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and we've completely overlooked the freemasonry connection?! Remember that Benjamin Franklin was a Freemason and probaby Jefferson, who was an outspoken critic against the system of monarchy. As a monarchist myself I have never been an avid admirer of Jefferson, although ironically John Johns Trigg, my direct ancestor, was his supporter; neeedless to add Rep. Trigg was also a Freemason, although his article doesn't state this.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The involvement of Freemasonry and Masonic ideas is well known, of course, in the setting up of the USA. But the type of Freemasonry in question was not Jacobite (which existed mainly in France and Germany, where the Stuarts still retained followers), but rather of the Grand Lodge of England variety, which had repudiated its Jacobite connections in 1717, though was not averse to copying some of its structures. Even today all American Freemasonry recognises, and is recognised by, UGLE (United Grand Lodge of England). ðarkuncoll 13:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The American Freemasons practiced/practice the Scottish rite of Freemasonry, which allegedly was established by the Templars.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Allegedly" being the opperative word - it's an origin-story created by 18th century romantics and fraudsters. The Jacobite connection is little more than a myth too, and even if there were some tenuous Continental links to the Stuarts to begin with, those were soon swept aside, and the Scottish rite has long since been a side order (among quite a few others, incidentally) recognised by UGLE. In the USA, as in England, by far the most popular form of Freemasonry is the standard blue lodge three degrees, membership of which is required for those who wish to enter one of the side orders, such as Scottish rite. ðarkuncoll 15:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right then. But what we see here is that the type of ruler does not necessarily mean he or she is irrelevant to the establishment of the English people. In the absence of an hereditary ruler, there are elected kings, or a crowned republic. In a sense, this is what Cromwell revived from the early English and what Washington did in homage of Cromwell's example. There should be no higher esteem to the inheritance for those whose foreign origin should not endow them with the automatic right to rule the native people. This is entirely in sync with complaints against misrule by Henry III and his foreign court by the foreigners themselves in the baronage, whose French sympathies gave us the Magna Carta, so the Stuarts couldn't have done so wrong except in avoiding their own French claims for the Auld Alliance. William III is a pale comparison and a perfect example of a new establishment getting carried away with itself, as the world turns and the more things change, the more they stay the same. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you a question at your IP account talkpage & both times you've deleted with no response. Why? GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template starts at Alfred the Great. The article List of English monarchs starts at Athelstan, on the basis that while some earlier kings were overlords or bretwalda of the English kingdoms, there was no single and enduring Kingdom of England until Athelstan. I propose either deleting Athelstan's predecessors from this template, or else italicizing them to mark them as disputed/debatable. See Talk:List of English monarchs for earlier debate. Richard75 (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I favor a revert to Alfred. There's no shortage of historians that give him as the first English king. In the much-quoted words of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, he was "King over all England except for that part that was under Danish domination." This is the entry for the year 900. So Alfred was being hailed as England's founder before Athelstan was even crowned. Our list should reflect how this type of list is typically done in the published sources. Every source does it a bit differently. But almost all of them start with someone earlier than Athelstan.

• "The kingdom of England was founded in 886 by Alfred the Great," according to The British Chronicles (2007) by David Hugh. Hugh's list naturally starts with Alfred.
• Cawthorne's Kings and Queens of England (2009) and Hilliam's Kings, Queens, Bones & Bastards, (2011) are the best selling books I could find on Amazon with lists of this kind. Both start with Egbert.
• The British Monarchy site starts even earlier, with Offa.
• "By the 890s, Alfred's charters and coinage were referring to him as 'king of the English'." (BBC) Greatness Bites (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...except for that part that was under Danish domination" is a pretty big exception. The Danes occupied a big chunk of what became England. Athelstan was the first king to rule all of England and pass it on to his successors. There are plenty of sources for him too. Offa's empire didn't durvive him, and nobody suggests that Egbert was ever king of England! The List of English monarchs page starts with Athelstan, for solid reasons, and the template should not be inconsistent with that article. Richard75 (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No specialist historian of the Anglo-Saxon period regards kings before Æthelstan as kings of England. The biography of Æthelstan by Oxford University historian Sarah Foot is called Æthelstan: The First King of England. Some historians dispute the title on the ground that he only claimed to be king of the English, and the term king of England was not used until the 11th century, but none would put it as early as Alfred, who only ruled Wessex and part of Mercia. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has changed the names of Scottish kings to the Gaelic version. This would obviously be correct for Gaelic Wikipedia, but I think that in English Wikipedia it is more helpful to readers to show the names as they are usually given in English language sources. Any other views on this? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take James over Seumas any day. Also we use English names for other kings too, such as the Norman kings of England. We don't call William the Conqueror Guillieme. Richard75 (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include James Francis Edward Stuart, aka the Old Pretender, as a disputed case? His supporters did control large parts of Britain on 2 occasions. PatGallacher (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe he's counted as a real king by any source. The disputed cases are people who were recognised by Parliament or the Privy Council at the time of their accession, which never happened to the Old Pretender. Indeed, the clue is in his nickname! Richard75 (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]