This template is within the scope ofWikiProject British Royalty (a child project of theRoyalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide toBritish Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit theproject page, where you canjoin the project and/or contribute to thediscussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit theproject page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty
Hmmm, having looked into it after the above discourse, it seems thatsomeone - 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[1].ðarkuncoll00:22, 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 seeingPhilip II of Spain listed in the English monarchs section & atList 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.ðarkuncoll17:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since he was called a king though, someonejust might be looking for him on this list. He's listed (in brackets) in my Guinness Book of Kings, Rulers & Statesmen.ðarkuncoll17:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, Philip has to stay. It must've been a Portugese idea, as they give regnal numbers to theirKing-consorts. Oddily enough, Philip latter became King of Portugal.GoodDay (talk)17:35, 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 anact 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 numerousprimary 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'sThe 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]
This template starts at Alfred the Great. The articleList of English monarchs starts at Athelstan, on the basis that while some earlier kings were overlords orbretwalda 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. SeeTalk: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 theAnglo-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 toThe British Chronicles (2007) by David Hugh. Hugh's list naturally starts with Alfred.
"...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 ruleall of England and pass it on to his successors. There are plenty of sources for him too. Offa's empire didn't durvive him, andnobody suggests that Egbert was ever king of England! TheList 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 historianSarah Foot is calledÆthelstan: 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]
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]
.png)