Scottish Royalty Template‑class | |||||||
|
Magnificent, now that's what I call an inclusive Template. GoodDay ( talk) 19:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please explain to me why King of Picts is included in this Template? Jack forbes ( talk) 20:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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? D B D 12:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
(outdent) I'm content with the current Template. GoodDay ( talk) 15:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Yes, I rather like that. ðarkun coll 17:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
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? ðarkun coll 00:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. ðarkun coll 17:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
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? ðarkun coll 17:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
For most of the period it was the kings who had the final say. Please stop trying to impose your POV on this article. ðarkun coll 17:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. ðarkun coll 11:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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? ðarkun coll 16:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 16:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 16:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 17:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 17:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 17:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Or by the time you've finished with them, 21. ðarkun coll 17:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
Notice the changes Tharky. It still uses 1603 as the merging point, which is wrong. GoodDay ( talk) 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
And for the umpteenth time, please stop saying the same thing over and over again. You are causing untold disruption. ðarkun coll 01:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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? ðarkun coll 01:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 01:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 01:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Yes, go for it! ðarkun coll 13:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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]. ðarkun coll 15:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Also have interrugnums in Scotland listed, for the same reason. ðarkun coll 16:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 16:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 16:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, ridiculous. ðarkun coll 16:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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". ðarkun coll 16:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
Eh? Show it me. ðarkun coll 16:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 16:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll
Cool! :) ðarkun coll 16:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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:
—— Shakescene ( talk) 21:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
[Before re-editing]
Why are the British and Scottish colours so similar? ðarkun coll 00:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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]. ðarkun coll 00:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 17:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 17:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know that about Portugal - what an odd idea. Still, regnal numbers tend to defy logic more often than not. ðarkun coll 17:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
If you think that's bad, look at the Merovingians. ðarkun coll 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. ðarkun coll 00:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. ðarkun coll 18:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Scottish Royalty Template‑class | |||||||
|
Magnificent, now that's what I call an inclusive Template. GoodDay ( talk) 19:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please explain to me why King of Picts is included in this Template? Jack forbes ( talk) 20:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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? D B D 12:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
(outdent) I'm content with the current Template. GoodDay ( talk) 15:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Yes, I rather like that. ðarkun coll 17:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
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? ðarkun coll 00:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. ðarkun coll 17:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
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? ðarkun coll 17:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
For most of the period it was the kings who had the final say. Please stop trying to impose your POV on this article. ðarkun coll 17:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. ðarkun coll 11:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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? ðarkun coll 16:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 16:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 16:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 17:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 17:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 17:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Or by the time you've finished with them, 21. ðarkun coll 17:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
Notice the changes Tharky. It still uses 1603 as the merging point, which is wrong. GoodDay ( talk) 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
And for the umpteenth time, please stop saying the same thing over and over again. You are causing untold disruption. ðarkun coll 01:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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? ðarkun coll 01:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 01:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 01:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Yes, go for it! ðarkun coll 13:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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]. ðarkun coll 15:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Also have interrugnums in Scotland listed, for the same reason. ðarkun coll 16:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 16:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 16:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, ridiculous. ðarkun coll 16:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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". ðarkun coll 16:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
Eh? Show it me. ðarkun coll 16:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 16:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll
Cool! :) ðarkun coll 16:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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:
—— Shakescene ( talk) 21:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
[Before re-editing]
Why are the British and Scottish colours so similar? ðarkun coll 00:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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]. ðarkun coll 00:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 17:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
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. ðarkun coll 17:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know that about Portugal - what an odd idea. Still, regnal numbers tend to defy logic more often than not. ðarkun coll 17:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
If you think that's bad, look at the Merovingians. ðarkun coll 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. ðarkun coll 00:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. ðarkun coll 18:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)