Talk:List of English monarchs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
List of English monarchs has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Contents |
[edit] Location
How on earth did List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England become the title of the article? Boo! Boo! john k 13:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you know how to change it back to its original title - List of monarchs of England - then please do so. TharkunColl 14:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Is that the place to move it to? List of English monarchs more closely parallels most of our other pages. john k 18:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I can change it if thats what people want. The List of English monarchs is currently a redirect, but I can delete the page. --Alex (Talk) 12:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I think anything's better than the current title, and yours is fine as long as by "English monarchs" it is understood to mean "monarchs of England" - since most of them weren't actually English. TharkunColl 23:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Table
What do people think of the table, under the Normans section? --Alex (Talk) 23:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Very bad indeed. Why single one particular dynasty out for this treatment? TharkunColl 00:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Epithets
I've just added "the Conqueror" and "Rufus". And remember that no pre-Norman kings were numbered by contemporaries, and relied solely on epithets to distinguish them. I'm also going to change William's accession date because he wasn't recognised as king by the Witan immediately after Hastings. TharkunColl 12:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Houses
The Houses of Lancaster and York were also Plantagenets, a fact that is reflected in the old article as it stands, but not in your version as it currently stands. Also, what criteria have you chosen for the start of reign? In some cases it appears to be coronation, in others the death of the predecessor. The true date is the proclamation. TharkunColl 16:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- This version takes facts from two books, and the existing articles for the particular monarchs. They are often different so I have chosen the more "common" one. In the book I'm using Lancaster and York were separate houses. --Alex (Talk) 17:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's looking very good so far by the way. We will be including the pre-Norman kings of course? TharkunColl 18:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I've made some changes in the nomeclature of the houses, because I think it's important to emphasise that those three houses were indeed all Plantagenets in the male line. I'd also like to clear up the accession dates as precisely as possible. The true date of accession was the proclamation - this sometimes corresponded with the death of the predecessor (sometimes, in medieval times, the next day), and sometimes with the coronation, and sometimes neither. We really do need to present accurate info here. A king entered upon his legal powers at proclamation. In modern times this always takes place as soon as the predecessor dies, but this has not always been the case. And another issue - I'm going to re-add the numbers for William etc. The only kings who should not be given numbers in this list are the pre-Norman ones. TharkunColl 12:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] MOS
What do you think of this, anyone who cares about the list in sandbox?
| Monarch | Birth | Marriages | Death | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name Accession date Accession year – Year reign ended |
 |
Birth date Birth year Birth place parentage |
Spouse Where Date married Year married no. of children |
Date of death Year of death Place of death aged at death |
- If information is unavailable, it is left out.
- If the monarch ends his or her reign early, the date is put in the monarch column as well as the year, and a link is made to a note explaining the reasons.
- If the date is approximate, it is written as c.Year (e.g. c.1028). There should only be one date written – not 1027/8 or 1027 or 1028. One should be chosen over the other, it looks messy otherwise. Date of death should be written as "about 60" or whatever.
- Places should be limited to one word – e.g. Shelby, instead of Shelby, Yorkshire, to avoid clutter. If the place is important to the event (such as New Forest for William II) then New Forest should be written, and Hampshire left out.
- Multiple marriages should be written as (1), (2) etc.
[edit] Looking good!
The basic structure seems to be almost done now. Is there any way of making all the boxes the same width all the way down, or does the wording automatically affect it? TharkunColl 17:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- You can set the widths, yes. It would be best to do that once all the monarchs' details had been done. --Majorly (Talk) 17:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Okay then. And after that, all we really really need to to is transfer the remaining info from the old article in a way that fits in with the new layout. TharkunColl 17:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Whichever is easier. I noticed you removed Elfward altogether in the end. Is this because he was only King of Wessex? TharkunColl 17:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well, since Elfward was only king of Wessex he probably shouldn't go in. But Edgar the Atheling was definitely recognised as king of England and therefore must go in, but he also has no picture. TharkunColl 17:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Article is now complete
I've imported all the relevant info from the old article, re-worded it, and incorporated it. If you think it's ready, then we can paste the whole lot back into the article page. TharkunColl 11:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- The widths shouldn't be too much of a problem. I'll paste it now. --Majorly (Talk) 13:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Peer review
Is there anything else that needs to be done before I submit this for a peer review? --Majorly (Talk) 21:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I can't really think of anything. TharkunColl 09:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
OK any help to improve from suggestions in the peer review will be appreciated. --Majorly (Talk) 21:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] House of Wessex (West Saxons)
should Monarches before 'Alfred the great' be added?
- Aethelwulf
839 – 855
- Aethelbert
860 – 866
- They weren't English monarchs, just in Wessex so no not really. --Majorly (Talk) 22:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] House vs Dynasty
Would it be appropriate to put Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Windsors houses under the Hanoverians section? After all, they are all part of the same dynasty. Rcog 05:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lady Jane Grey?
Why is Lady Jane Grey listed as an official monarch? It directly contradicts another article in Wikipedia:
"Henry VII's great-granddaughter. Not generally noted as officially queen." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_in_the_British_Isles)
Plus, most historians and history books (plus the majority of public opinion) do not regard her as an official Queen of England. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.77.48.14 (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
- We cannot use other articles on Wikipedia as evidence - they too might be just as wrong. And in this case, demonstrably so. Jane was proclaimed monarch, and this is the only possible criterion that any proper list can apply. TharkunColl 09:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Huh? Most lists of English monarchs do not include here. She was barely de facto queen (her authority was never recognized in most of the country), and certainly not de jure queen. There is a semi-official list of English monarchs, and Jane isn't on it. This is at least as valid a criterion as whether someone was proclaimed. john k 23:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Stupid royal website. If they want to suck, I suppose there's not much for us to do about it. I think we ought to be dubious about the canonical status of anyone who is universally known as "Lady Jane Grey" rather than "Queen Jane." Certainly there should be a footnote. john k 07:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
