Talk:List of English monarchs

Merging 3 Pages

Idk if this was discussed but why aren't the monarchs of Wessex, England, and Britain on the same page? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Why would they be? They are not the same entities. Bazza (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

12 July 927

The wild notion that the English monarchy was created on 12 July 927 is entirely implausible and unsupported by any source. The English monarchy began as the kings of Wessex who gradually and eventually established their dominance over the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, which didn't all unite on the same day. The text of this very article acknowledges that the kingdom formed during the reigns of Alfred, Edward and Athelstan, a period of decades. And there have been several discussions of that very topic on previous occasions (see archived talk pages). So I propose taking that date out of the infobox and substituting "tenth century" or "9th-10th centuries" or similar. Richard75 (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Richard75: Thank you for following WP:BRD; I reverted your edit partly because you had not provided a reason for making it.

I agree that the very specific date is a step too far, but the article suggests, in the lead's third paragraph (with two references), that 927 is a reasonable year to choose. Even if that precision is too much, I think broadening the date to centuries is a step too far, and would prefer to see c. 930 with a footnote.

Other editors may join in to disagree. Bazza (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That is also a reasonable idea, although it has the drawback of implying that Alfred was not king of England, when an earlier consensus was that the list should start with him. Richard75 (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The article states clearly in its lead that "Æthelstan became the first king to rule the whole of England when he conquered Northumbria in 927, and he is regarded by some modern historians as the first true king of England". That would need to be reconciled with any different claims. Bazza (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That's very selective quoting! This is what the article says:

"Arguments are made for a few different kings thought to have controlled enough Anglo-Saxon kingdoms to be deemed the first king of England... Offa achieved a dominance over many of the kingdoms of southern England, but this did not survive his death in 796. Likewise, in 829 Egbert of Wessex conquered Mercia, but he soon lost control of it. It was not until the late 9th century that one kingdom, Wessex, had become the dominant Anglo-Saxon kingdom. Its king, Alfred the Great, was overlord of western Mercia and used the title King of the Angles and Saxons, but he never ruled eastern and northern England, which was then known as the Danelaw, having earlier been conquered by the Danes from southern Scandinavia. His son Edward the Elder conquered the eastern Danelaw, but Edward's son Æthelstan became the first king to rule the whole of England when he conquered Northumbria in 927, and he is regarded by some modern historians as the first true king of England.

(Emphasis added.) Richard75 (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Richard75: It's not selective quoting, and you don't need to show me the paragraph I've taken the words from. I'm asking how a definitive statement made in the article can be reconciled with other stuff which seems to obliquely contradict it.

Readers (me included) may look to find who actually was the first king of England, and will find the words "Æthelstan became the first king to rule the whole of England when he conquered Northumbria in 927". That's pretty definitive. The qualifier which follows ("and he is regarded by some modern historians as the first true king of England") suggests this is backed up by some experts, even if other disagree (as is often the case in any supposition).

The sentence in question is preceded by others about those who didn't quite make the mark (including Alfred); and is followed by a couple who came much later. Either the definitive statement needs to be not so assertive, or the article needs to adopt 927, or thereabouts, as a good stick in the sand.

It did occur to me that there's no indication in the lead of what "England" is, but Kingdom of England is helpfully linked and currently seems to use 927 as a starting point, albeit tagged for further checks. Bazza (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The paragraph as a whole makes it clear that there isn't a definitive answer and that there is disagreement on the subject. Maybe the bit you picked up on needs to be re-worded a little. It isn't Wikipedia's job to decide which historians are right. Richard75 (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

P.S.- Apologies if my previous comment was rude. Richard75 (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Alfred vs Athelstan

Who to start this list with has been debated a lot in this talk page over the years (in 2015, 2016, 2019 and 2022), and a consensus was reached to change it from Athelstan to Alfred. Please don't change it back without first getting a consensus to do that. (And frankly, don't even bother to do that because it's flogging a dead horse at this point!) Richard75 (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

i already id Ben Halfond (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Should we put 886 or 927 for the foundation of Kingdom of England?

In my opinion, it should be the year 927. XX 2A02:587:8114:4D00:8256:DB06:6E5:2364 (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Mary & William

Why is William in the left hand column and Mary further right? Why not the other way round? 2A00:23C6:1484:9401:DDD2:6062:7A0E:B814 (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I can't see what you're referring to. Can you be more specific? Richard75 (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)