Talk:List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

I computed the reign lengths as numbers of days, rather than months:

• Victoria: 23253 days; Elizabeth II will match that on Oct 6, not Sep 9, 2015.
• George III: 21644 days; E.II will match on May 11, 2011.
• James VI: 21066 days; E.II will match on Oct 9, 2009.
• Henry III: 20482 days; E.II will match on Mar 5, 2008.

I hope someone will check my figures. —Tamfang 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I calculate Queen Victoria's reign as being 63 years, 7 months and 3 days long, which comes out to 23,227 days. She became queen in 1837 on June 20, not on May 24 (she was born on May 24, 1819). EgbertW 04:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I get 23226 – but it does bring the "target" back to Sep.9. Thanks. (I'm using a program I wrote to compute Julian Days.) —Tamfang 04:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Until she's within a year of catching up to Henry III, I think it's a bit silly to update H.P.M. between anniversaries. But whatever floats your boat. —Tamfang 22:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The name of this article should be changed as not all those listed were monarchs of the United Kingdom. 72.60.227.118 04:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the date to match James VI is is 9 October 2009. My calculation shows the same number of days, 21066, but I show Queen Elizabeth matching that on 10 October 2009. I calculated this by having MSExcel subtracting 6 February 1952 from 10 October 2009 and by doing the math by hand:

I broke off the greatest multiple of four I can first. In this case it is 56 years. I did this because dividing by four gives you the number of leap days during the span (there is an exception that is not relevant here). Thus, the number of days in 56 years is (56 * 365) + (56/4) = (20440 + 14) = 20545. That brings us to 6 February 2008.

Next I added the remaining whole year. That year includes 29 February 2009, a leap day, so I added 366. We are at 20911 days, or 6 February 2009. After that comes the eight months. There are four 31-day months (March, May, July & August) and one 28-day month for a total of 242 days, bringing the total to 21062 days, or 6 October 2009. To get to 21066, we obviously need to add four days, which brings us to 10 October 2009.

The reason James was eight months, three days, but Elizabeth is eight months, four days is that James had five 31-day months in his eight months, while Elizabeth only had four. Rrius (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I do realize the page reflects 11 October 2009 as the surpass date (thus 10 October 2009 as the match date), but I wanted to make sure that later editors are not tripped up by the discrepancy above. Rrius (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at the longest reigning monarchs table and noticed that, from today, Queen Elizabeth II supposedly has 41 days until she surpasses the reign of King George III. However, it is stated that Queen Elizabeth will be second longest reigning on 12 May 2011. 12 May 2011 is only 40 days away from now, so surely either the date or the Queen's current length of time on the throne is incorrect? SAULGNRFAN (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC).

You may be right. Try this site http://www.timeanddate.com/date/duration.html to double-check. —

MC

21:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have used that website and have found that 12 May 2011 is the date when the present Monarch's reign surpasses that of King George III. However, the column of the table that shows how long the monarchs reigns are still shows Queen Elizabeth II's reign as needing 33 more days on the throne to surpass King George III, which would be 13 May 2011 and not 12 May 2011. This suggests that the timer is not calibrated correctly. This will become clearer closer to the date of the reign's matching in length. SAULGNRFAN (talk)

I don't think that the current Queen,

10:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As a proud American, living across the pond, I think I need to state that I think that the current Queen,

should be included in this list. The true question is how often it should be updated. This is not a severe issue at the moment (or at least for another 17 months when she will pass Henry III. I find it informative to have the current monarch listed since it is of the order of the others. When her reign does end, I would have no problem waiting for 50 years for the next monarch on the list. It is a rare enough occurance for monarchs to reign this long that I see no trouble with Elizabeth staying on this list, however morbid the rest of the subject. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Autkm (talk • contribs

) .

I notice the last edit was to update her reign by one day !!. It is absurd to keep on doing this so frequently. She may well live another 20 years to 100 as her own mother did. Do we seriously propose to have 7,300 edits over that period to keep daily track of her reign? Surely a month-by-month change would be sufficient. JackofOz 11:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't even go so far as that - the page only really needs updating when she moves up a rung... -

BD^R

16:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I calculate 81 years, 7 months and 29 days (the length of Queen Victoria's life) as being 29,829 days. Therefore, won't Queen Elizabeth II (born on April 21, 1926) become the oldest monarch in British history on December 20, 2007, rather than on December 14? I know this doesn't involve the Old Style / New Style date issue, as Victoria was born after 1752. — EgbertW 01:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be right. Try this site http://www.timeanddate.com/date/duration.html to double-check. —

21:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The list of British monarchs by longevity should really be its own article. Monarchist Butterfly 20:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no point in having a separate page when all it will contain is information regurgitated from this one. If the title does not suit what the article displays then it is the title that should be changed, not a new article with the same information and a shortening of the list on this page to actually represent only the "longest-reigning British monarchs".Burbridge92 (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

See

14:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The article states that George II reigned for 33 years 4 months and 14 days. This ignores the adoption of the Gregorian calendar in 1752 where Wednesday, September 2, 1752 was followed by Thursday, September 14, 1752. The year 1752 was 355 days long (1752 was a leap year). So, one of the 33 years is 11 days shorter. This could be corrected by stating 33 years 4 months and 3 days. Or a footnote could be put in place. Or the actual number of days could be inserted (but that would be less meaningful). In any event it does not seem to impact any other parts of the article. Alan Davidson (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Roman Spinner changed the date for Elizabeth to surpass Louis XIV to 18 May 2024, which was closer than the previous date. I calculated Louis's reign to be 26409 days, which would mean Elizabeth needs to live until 27 May 2024. I changed the date to reflect that.

In addition, the dates for Elizabeth to pass Henry and Victoria were each off by one day. I added a day to each. They are now 7 March 2008 and 10 September 2015. -Rrius 06:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Should Queen Elizabeth II still be reigning on: ... 06 Feb 2047 , at the age of 121 , she would become the longest reigning monarch of all time, surpassing the reign of Pepi II Neferkare who reigned for 94 years.

I object to this. If she lives that long, she'd be one of the three longest-lived people in the history of the world (!), hardly a likely occurrence. Pepi's dates are unknown; even his years are approximate, so how do we know exactly which day E2 would surpass his reign? We don't, and never will. In any event, it puts Wikipedia in danger of being a laughing stock. I'm removing it. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unecessary to keep that part. You may have removed it but it came back. I'm removing it once again. --89.59.7.137 (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Pepi II Neferkare was actually the longest ever serving monarch by 'known' history even if its disputed. It's a known fact he lasted at least 80 years by the national history muesum of the United Kingdom. Meaning that he is, thus at least the second longest known in history. However, wouldn't it be better to say Elizabeth will be the longest reigning English Monarch and the longest reigning Monarch in Modern history? instead of the maybe occurance now? I think we owe it to Pepi who did live till 110 or something rediculous for his time. METALFREAK04 (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that he cannot be the longest serving known by history if we do not know that his reign lasted more than anyone else's. If you can verify the claim of 80 years, then that would do it it would still not be the longest according to this article. As of yet, no such thing has been established here. -Rrius (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the Pepi page, it is not possible to verify Pepi's reign, which may have been anywhere from 62 to 94(ish) years. Perhaps it is notable enough mention Pepi and his disputed length of reign. A footnote or parenthetical statement could do the job. -Rrius (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Pepi's reign is unproven is enough to remove any mention of it from this page, even if he is still to be mentioned on the page for longest reigning monarchs overall.Burbridge92 (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if a documentry of his reign is any notable enough? It is quite recent, I found it on youtube funnily enough, as i was sure i have watched this remarkable Pharoh's story before. And, I think it should say modern, because those Pharoahs and those Persian kings lived for ages and reigned for ages, longer than a mere 80 years. But no i have no evidence for this, just that i have seen alot of programmes on Ancient egypt and the timeline that they show each time is the era of pharoahs/etc. which is like 500 years at the time and they only show like 5 kings/pharoahs at a time. That generalistic but basically, i try and find them and show it here. METALFREAK04 (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

First, what documentary?

Second, not everything on YouTube is reliable.

Third, your assertion that you have seen unspecified television programs that feature five pharaohs from blocks of 500-ish years in an eras when we often do not have adequate records of regnal years is not even close to a reliable source.

-Rrius (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello All reputable sources other than Wikepedia discount James i/vi "Reign of 57yrs".He reigned from 1567-1603 seperately as King Of Scotland. From 1603-1625 he reigned as King of England/Great Britain. This is two completely seperate reigns which should not be "added" together to get the 57 yrs.He was King of Scotland for 36 years and King of Great Britain for 22 years.One cannot have it both ways.

This means that Elizabeth ii who has reigned since 6 Feb 1952 continously is about to become the 3rd longest reigning monarch in british history when she passes Henry iii reign of 56 years 29 days on 7th March 2008 or thereabouts. She surpassed James's reign long ago. HB Howbridge (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see my reply to your comment at

Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#Elizabeth ii Main Article Sub Heading :CONTEXT. Thanks, mattbr

19:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Beginning date

I recently reverted a editor saying that Egbert and Ethelred were not kings after 1000 AD, and that James I was. Well, I was 2.5 out of 3. Egbert wasn't and James was, but 16 of Ethelred's years came after 1000. His 38 years would be some where around Henry VI. Also, Edward the Confessor reigned for 23.5 years, which would rank above James I. It seems to me that we should either include the Anglo-Saxon kings of England or begin with the Normans. -Rrius (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This article can be confusing. After the United Kingdom as a political entity began in 1707; under the name UK is began 'bout 1801, etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm talking exclusively about England and about 600 years before the union with Scotland. Ethelred the Unready was king for 38 years, of which 16 occurred from 1000 forward. Edward the Confessor was king for 23.5 years. Thus, as the lead is currently written, Edward should be just above James I because he reigned for 1.5 years more. Ethelred should be above Henry VI and maybe Henry VIII (depending on the number of days Ethelred was king). Otherwise, the Scotland list should start with 1058, and the English one at the 1066 Conquest. -Rrius (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

On a related topic, see

) 22:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

George III George II

I understand the UK calendar changed in 1752, during his reign, and the actual length of his reign was 11 days shorter than a calculation based simply on the start and end dates would indicate.

But leaving that issue aside for the moment, we're saying he reigned for 59 years 96 days. I can't see how it could be anything other than 59 years 97 days. Unless we're counting only one of the start/end dates, not both. Which would be an odd thing to do. He started on 25 October. Including that day, there were 7 days in October, followed by 30 days in November, 31 days in December and 29 days in January. That's a total of 97 days.

Are all the reign lengths calculated by including only one of the outer dates? If so, I believe we should revisit that. It's normal convention to include both dates when calculating periods of service, which assumes they started at a moment past midnight and ended a moment before midnight. This never reflects reality, but I think it's a safer basis than arbitrarily excluding one of the days altogether. For a certain part of the start date, they were actually reigning, and for a certain part of the end date, they were still actually reigning.

Now returning to the calendar issue: whether the apparent total is 96 or 97 days, it should be reduced to either 85 or 86 days by reducing it by the 11 days that simply did not exist between the changeover from Julian to Gregorian. Unless we indicate that "year" does not necessarily mean 365 or 366 days, because in 1752 it meant 355 days (= 366 minus 11). And that we regard all "years" to be of equal status (just as, when counting in months, we treat them all as equal by disregarding whether they actually have 28, 29, 30 or 31 days). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've no problem with adjusting the number of days. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean changing 96 to 97, or changing 96 via 97 to 86? In either case, we'll need a footnote explaining how we got to that figure. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Whichever you figure is the correct change. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

George III began reigning in 1760, after the calendar change... ðarkuncoll 23:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In the UK and its colonies Wednesday, 2 September 1752 was followed by Thursday, 14 September 1752 - hence before George III. So, the question arises, do we need to make an adjustment for George II? Alan Davidson (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Don't know how I got it into my head it was George III on the throne at the time. Everything I said applies to George II, of course. I've amended the header. The basic principle behind my point remains, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(reset) OK, I've recalculated all the reign lengths on the basis of including both end dates. Let's leave George II aside for the moment. The current numbers are all one day short, except for Henry III. I propose to add one day to all the reign lengths except Henry III's. And also to add the following text:

The lengths of these reigns include both the day the monarch started reigning and the day they ended their reign".

George II's reign should be decreased by 10 days (the extra one, as above, less the 11 days caused by the disconjuct between the calendars). I'd put this footnote next to his reign:

• During George II's reign, the Old Style (Julian) Calendar was replaced by the New Style (Gregorian) Calendar. Wednesday, 2 September 1752 (Julian) was followed by Thursday, 14 September 1752 (Gregorian). In Great Britain, the year 1752, a leap year, was only 355 days long, since the 11-day period 3-13 September (inclusive) did not exist. Thus George II's reign was 11 days shorter than a calculation based on his start and end dates would indicate.

I seem to have agreement in principle from GoodDay about George III, but since this change involves almost all the monarchs, are there any comments before I proceed with the above edits? The dates on which Elizabeth II will surpass various other monarchs' lengths will also need to be reviewed, and will probably need to change. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would you want to include both the start date and the end date? That's not a normal way of counting. It would mean that days are counted twice. Here are some others factors - some years are leap years, so it would be better to state the exact number of days in total. ðarkuncoll 11:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I stated at the outset my reasoning, which I'll repeat here (I was talking about George III):

• He started (reigning) on 25 October. Including that day, there were 7 days in October, followed by 30 days in November, 31 days in December and 29 days in January. That's a total of 97 days. ... It's normal convention to include both dates when calculating periods of service, which assumes they started at a moment past midnight and ended a moment before midnight. This never reflects reality, but I think it's a safer basis than arbitrarily excluding one of the days altogether. For a certain part of the start date, they were actually reigning, and for a certain part of the end date, they were still actually reigning.

In other words, if a person became king at some unspecified time on 1 January and died at some unspecified time on 2 January, how long did he reign? In actuality, the reign could have been as short as 2 minutes (11:59 PM on 1 January to 12:01 AM on 2 January), or as long as just shy of 2 days (12:01 AM on 1 January to 11:59 PM on 2 January). But that's irrelevant. All we take into account is the number of different days on which they reigned, which in this case would be 2 (1st and 2nd January). That is, we count both end dates. We haven't been doing that up till now, and I'm arguing we should.

Re leap years: I also addressed this above (... we regard all "years" to be of equal status (just as, when counting in months, we treat them all as equal by disregarding whether they actually have 28, 29, 30 or 31 days).) The only exception to this in Britain is 1752, where the calendar changed. We cannot include 3-13 September 1752 (11 days), because those 11 days did not exist. So, whatever raw number we come up with for George II has to be reduced by 11 days. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You might find this site useful [1] - it will allow you to convert any date into a

Julian day number, which you can then use to determine the exact number of days between two dates. ðarkuncoll

12:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that's a well researched and accurate collection of information. But it avoids the issue we're discussing. It does not talk about the number of days in a given period delimited by Date X and Date Y. Even if it did, it would be using only one of three possible bases:

• A. Count both end dates
• B. Count neither end date
• C. Count one of the dates only.

I'm arguing we should use basis A for this article. Up till now, we've been using basis C. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I understand what you're saying, I'm not sure it's best. Take your example of someone who reigned from 1st to 2nd January. As you rightly say, he may have reigned for a couple of minutes, or nearly two days. But the average of those two figures is one day, not the two days that would be given under your proposal, which is the maximum, not the average. Look at it another way - today happens to be Thursday. We don't say last Thursday was eight days ago. We say it was seven days ago. ðarkuncoll 15:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The average is just as irrelevant as the precise times involved. All we ever consider is the dates. For your second point, that's just a language issue. We still say that Jesus was crucified on Good Friday and rose on "the third day", Easter Sunday. That form of words comes from the King James Bible, weitten in Shakespeare's time, and has entered the language as a stock phrase. But if the Bible were being written today, it would be "the second day" after his his crucifixion. There are probably languages around today where last Thursday is expressed as "eight days ago", not "seven days ago". The fact remaains that such a king would have reigned on 1st January and also on 2nd January, so surely it's appropriate to say he reigned for 2 days, because he did in fact reign on 2 separate dates. I understand your earlier point about not wanting to double count the day on which one monarch died and the next one acceded to the throne. That would make a lot of sense if we're dividing a long block of time (200+ years, say) into the periods belonging to each monarch and expressing them as a precise percentage of the total period, down to 4 decimal places, say. Absolutely appropriate in that context. But we're not doing that. We're considering each monarch's reign length separately, then ranking them. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it still strikes me as a bit odd. It's like saying that a monarch whose reign began in 2008 and ended in 2009 reigned for two years - in other words, if you're going to count the days inclusively, why not the years and months as well? ðarkuncoll 21:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from. But I still haven't heard any good argument why we should count the first day he reigned but not the last, or vice-versa. That is just as arbitrary as counting both days. The only absolutely precise way of doing it is to get down to years, days, hours, and minutes (or even seconds). Anything else necessarily involves a compromise, and that includes my suggestion. But it just seems far more logical and intuitive to me to count every different day on which they reigned, when considering other than whole years. Your argument is undermined by the fact that we count all years, whether leap years or non-leap years, as if they were of the same length, when we all know they're not. If a king acceded on 14 November 1953 and died on 13 November 1963, would we say he reigned for 10 years 0 days, or 9 years 364 days? I would most definitely say 10 years 0 days. Presumably you'd say 9 years 364 days. Since both approaches involve a degree of departure from "the truth", maybe we need to hear from other editors and try to get a consensus. My life won't be ruined if we don't go down the path I'm proposing, but whatever we do, we should spell out in the article the basis on which we count reign lengths so that we're all on the same page. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

By your calculation, a person born on 14 November 1953 has their 10th birthday on 13 November 1963!!!??? Alan Davidson (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that at all. Not at all. We celebrate birthdays on the anniversary of the day on which a person was born, but in this example the person completed their 10th year and first decade at the end of 13 November 1963. On 14 November they entered their 11th year of life, and their second decade. This is all based on the general assumption, that I alluded to earlier, that for these sorts of purposes, births and commencements of reigns are assumed to occur on the stroke of midnight. That's why a person who was actually born at 2:17 pm is considered to have reached a new age the moment the anniversary of their birth arrives, at midnight. In scientifically precise terms, they didn't actually achieve 10 years of life until 2:17 pm on 14 November, but in practical terms they achieved it 14 hours and 17 minutes earlier, at midnight between 13-14 November. The moment that point arrived, the clock for their 11th year starts. Counting in whole days only, the day of their birth (14 November 1953) was their first day of life, 15 November was their second, 16 November their third ........ 13 November 1954 their 365th ... and 14 November 1954 their 366th, and thus we're already into their second year. It's impractical for most people to have a birthday party starting on the stroke of midnight, and it's inappropriate to celebrate the completion of the year before midnight, before it's actually finished, so such celebrations are held at some convenient time during the anniversary day, by which time they are usually many hours into their next year.

Taking another example: say the Queen died at 8:30 am on 4 September. Charles immediately accedes to the throne at 8:30 am. That very afternoon, he trips over a loose carpet, smashes his head on the edge of a coffee table, and dies before midnight. Would we say the length of his reign was 0 days? No, it would be 1 day, because parts of days are counted as whole days. Everything else follows from that. Had he survived till some time on 5 September, his reign would be 2 days. Et cetera. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Check out how this situation is handled at Pope John Paul I. Did he reign 33 or 34 days. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I’m glad you mentioned John Paul I, GoodDay, because the way we handle him is precisely what I'm arguing here. His article talks about him dying "33 days after" he became pope. It never actually gets down to stating the length of his reign. But go to

List of popes by length of reign

, and the section "Popes with the shortest reigns", and we see:

• The number of days shown includes part days. For example, if a pope's reign commenced on 1 August and he died on 2 August, this would count as having reigned for two days. (I couldn't have put it better myself.)

And John Paul I's reign length is given as 34 days, not 33. He became pope on 26 August. The first 25 days of August were gone, and he reigned for the remaining 6 days of August. Then for 28 days in September, making a total of 34 days. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's adopt the Papal list example. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Lady Jane Grey is regarded as the 9 day Queen - from 10th July to 19th July. Alan Davidson (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. On the other hand, many so-called "nine day wonders" last for a lot less than 9 days, and sometimes for quite a bit longer than 9 days. Stock expressions like this should really play no part in this debate. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia site for this and its underlying historical references!!! Alan Davidson (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

James VI & I of Scotland, England & Ireland

See

) 22:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Glass orb thing coming back

I just deleted this text from the article:

*6 February 2047, at the age of 120, she would become the longest-reigning monarch in known history, surpass the reign of

has ever been documented to live over 119 years, any of the three living to 2046 or 2047 is highly unlikely.

It seems this glass orb nonsense comes back from time to time. I remember it was discussed before as unnecessary for the article (see section "Pepi II"). So I deleted it again. --Krawunsel (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As it says, Pepi II's reign is disputed anyway, so she would have already become the "longest-reigning monarch in known history" before then, because Pepi II's reign is not actually known.Burbridge92 (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it worth adding a footnote to the effect that the Old Pretender, the Jacobite James III & VII would have reigned from 16 September 1701 – 1 January 1766, c. 64 years 3 1/2 months? Jwasanders (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A footnote maybe, after all, Richard Cromwell has a footnote on the "List of British monarchs by longevity" page for being the longest-living ruler of the country (and is yet to be surpassed by the current Queen in that respect). However, a footnote is as far as it can go, as to give James a mention with the other monarchs on this page would suggest that other pretenders to the thrown (e.g. Empress Matilda, Charles Edward Stuart, Edward Plantagenet) and perhaps even false pretenders, who were still pretenders (e.g. Perkin Warbeck, Lambert Simnel) need their pretended reigns listed also. Furthermore, it could be argued that seeing as the Old Pretender never actually reigned it would not be suitable to feature him here, seeing as it is a page for "longest-reigning British monarchs". In any case, if the Jacobite Pretender was given a footnote on this page, once his "reign" os surpassed (if we were to assume the current Queen will surpass that reign's length on the throne) then any mention of any pretender should be disgarded as this page is not meant for them. SAULGNRFAN (talk)

I've added notes about James Francis Edward Stuart (the "Old Pretender"). Goustien (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added the actual amount of days of the pretended reign (23,472 days) to the note on James Francis Edward Stuart, see discussion topic "Flaw with Queen Elizabeth II's timer" for explanation as to why that is needed.Burbridge92 (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If she will be 89 in 2015 how will she be 98 in 2051? I am not particularily proficient at mathematics but is does seem fairly innacurate.

) 02:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)jamhaw

This is just further evidence why users who put this information on the page should always provide sources to their calculations, like with the date calculations for how long it will take the current monarch to surpass each previous monarch. That way they cannot get the calculations wrong.Burbridge92 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"All monarchs reigned from the date of their predecessor's death until their own deaths, with two exceptions"

OK what about Henry VI then ? It looks to me, like there are three exceptions.Eregli bob (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

What happened to Great Britain?

• We go from the United Kingdom straight to the separate kingdoms of England and Scotland. Is there a good reason why we exclude mention of the Kingdom of Great Britain, which existed between 1707 and 1801?
• We mention the union of the kingdoms of England and Scotland, but make no mention of the union of the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland.
• We show Anne, George I and George II as monarchs of the United Kingdom – but they weren’t.
• We say that Anne of England was later Anne of Great Britain (which is true), but then show her as Anne of the United Kingdom (which is not true).

Seems to me we need an additional table for Monarchs of Great Britain. I can’t see that this has ever been discussed before. Is there something obvious I’m missing? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've created a Great Britain table and amended the others as necessary. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be adopting different treatments for the 2 monarchs whose reigns spanned different kingdoms – Anne and George III.

In Anne’s case, we show her as Queen of England only up till 1 May 1707 (when the Kingdom of England ceased to exist), and as Queen of Great Britain only from 1 May 1707. We give her 5 years 54 days for the first monarchy and 7 years 92 days for the second monarchy. Nowhere do we show her total length of reign as 14 years 146 days (or whatever). This article is about the longest-serving monarchs, and total continuous reign across different monarchies is surely relevant. But we don’t do this for Anne.

Yet we do it for George III, who’s given 59 years 96 days in both the tables he’s in (Great Britain, and United Kingdom), and his individual sub-reigns do not appear anywhere.

We cannot justify this inconsistent treatment. I can see arguments for both treatments; but whatever we do, we have to do it the same for both Anne and George. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that all English monarch's dating back to Æthelstan (whose reign began in 924/925 A.D.) have been listed in order of reign length in this article, yet only the few longest-reigning Scottish monarchs have been listed in their respective section on this page. I propose that the the reigns of the monarchs of Scotland who reigned over the course of the same years of the currently listed monarchs of England should also be listed chronologically in their respective section in this article.

It could be argued that it is not necessary to include all the Scottish monarchs due to this being a page of the longest-reigning British monarchs, but by the same logic the pre-union English monarchs also should not be included on this page as they are not British monarchs either. SAULGNRFAN (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I suspect they only aren't there because no one has actually got round to adding them. Please feel free to do so. ðarkuncoll 16:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to add the Scottish monarchs aswell, but discrepencies between this page and the page regarding the longevity of British monarchs lead me to pose the question: Should English and Scottish monarchs be include on this page or should they be given their own respective Wikipedia pages? Also, if they are to be given a section on this page, should the longevity of the English and Scottish monarchs be given a section on the longevity page? I think this needs some discussion and a general consensus on the matter. SAULGNRFAN (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't need a proliferation of pages saying basically the same thing. ðarkuncoll 16:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So, that would leave the option of extending the list of monarchs on both this page and the longevity one so that both pages represent the same eras, which I would have thought was the best option anyway. SAULGNRFAN (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you are welcome to do so. ðarkuncoll 17:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The English & Scottish monarchs should be excluded from this article & have their own List of longest reigning X monarchs articles. Either that or change the name of this article to List of longest-reigning monarchs of the British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but I also agree with ðarkun that we don't need multiple pages that are essentially on the same topic. The divisions within this page will suffice, it is the name that should be changed to represent what can be found on this page correctly. SAULGNRFAN (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is called the List of longest-reigning British monarchs yet it has Jane (9 days) and Edward V (78 days) which isn't that long of a reign. In fact, it appears to list all monarchs irrespective of the length of their reign. It would be more accurate if it were titled

) 22:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yea, verily. In fact, it starts out: The following is a list of the monarchs in order of how long they reigned .... That's non-optimal wording, but it has the right idea. "Reign" could mean various things, so I'd suggest we move it to

List of British monarchs by length of reign, which is currently a redirect to this article.. -- Jack of Oz [your turn]

02:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually this article should be moved to List of longest-reigning monarchs of the British Isles, if we're gonna keep the English, Scottish & Irish monarchs in it. GoodDay (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That title is still inaccurate. It should be List of monarchs of the British Isles in order of how long they reigned, or something that states the same, as this is not a list of the longest-reigning monarchs of the British Isles, but in face a list of all monarchs over a period of around 1000 years. Hence why even Jane (whose reign lasted for no more than nine days) is included within this list. burbridge92 (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's ordered by the length of their reign, but it's not just about the longest-reigning monarchs, but about ALL monarchs, of wherever. Except there are some gaps in the coverage of the Scottish monarchs, for some reason. There were not only 6 monarchs between 1000 and 1625. That would have given them an average length of reign of 104 years! -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The inconsistent treatment of England and Scotland has already been commented on in its own section on this discussion page, and you're right, there are many Scottish monarchs missing from the list. Everyone that has commented here has provided some excellent points. There are many inaccuracies with this page at present. burbridge92 (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I was bold & moved the title to List of longest-reigning monarchs in the British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As this is a longest reigning article, we need cutting off points for each part. I'd say the top 5 UK (UKGBI & UKGBNI), top 5 ENG & top 5 SCOT. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the "British Isles" thing invites trouble we don't need, and not just from the interminable fights caused just by using that term. The one thing that every monarch listed has in common is that they reigned over some part of the Island of Great Britain. Some only part, some all of it, and some more than it. Why would it be any more important to include Ireland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man than it is to include India, Canada, Australia, South Africa, etc.? I tend to agree with Jack of Oz's proposal. My only question is whether we make the name change then add the Kings of Scots or vice versa. I almost added all the monarchs during the period of personal union with England, but the dates for the Scottish effects of the Glorious Revolution tripped me up. Some of the dates at the relevant articles didn't match up and I was way too tired for research, so I left it alone. -Rrius (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

One thing the article has never covered, but should, is the 11 separate monarchies listed @ Category:Anglo-Saxon monarchs. If they didn't reign over some part of Great Britain, I'm a monkey's uncle. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

They are not all British monarchs. If we gonna keep the article at this title? then the article needs splitting. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

But what does "British" mean? Or what was it intended to mean in the context of this list? Rrius argues that it's strictly about the island of Great Britain and does not even extend to the other British Isles. How do we know that the intention was as definitely limited as that? Maybe we need to go back to the start and rethink what this list is for and come up with some consensus, and only then fill in the names and dates. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not a longest reigning article. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a curate's egg in terms of sticking to that particular brief. It shows all the English monarchs, only some of the Scottish (presumbaly only the longest-reigning of them), and none of the Welsh or Anglo-Saxons. If it comes to a choice between showing all the relevant monarchs, or only the longest-reigning of them, I'd go for all. Otherwise, where do we draw the line, and why? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be the top 3 per group. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's the where, but what about the why there? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's kinda a gold, silver, bronze approach. As for the monarchs of the United Kingdon (before & after the Ireland partition), there's only 12 individuals to date. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't work for me. I think readers are interested in knowing not just about Queen Victoria, King George III and Queen Elizabeth II in England/Great Britain/UK for example, but where their favourite monarch (Henry VIII, Charles I, Edward VII, ...) would appear in a list of all the monarchs ordered by length of reign. I think we need a novel approach to this, and I'll be working on some ideas over the forthcoming Easter break. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I also don't see much point in limiting it to a set number of monarchs. While lumping England, Scotland, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom into one article feels alright to me, I'm finding it impossible to come up with a justification and title that put them together logically. That leads me to think that we should have one for England, one for Scotland, and one for GB and the UK (they are together at

) 21:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's the best way to go. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is. At the moment, looking at the page, it looks a mess, disjointed, and perplexing. I think many people would simply like to see a straight list of all monarchs that have reigned in the island of Great Britain by descending order of length of reign. May I make a suggestion? By doing this you can differentiate the territorial assignation of each monarch by simply adding an additional column to the right (or left) and stating the state concerned. For example it could run along the lines of:

1) Victoria. 63 years etc. United Kingdom.

2) Elizabeth II. 59 years etc. United Kingdom.

3) George III. 59 years etc. Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

4) James VI and I. 57 years etc. Scotland & England.

5) Henry III. 56 years etc. England.

etc etc.

This would satisfy the main purpose of the article. Presently the emphasis on the territorial assignations of each reign in favour of the actual length of reign itself(wherever they may have reigned, they are all geographically 'British') is ruining the article. Ds1994 (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's an eminently sensible solution. People look at this page for records, and to have to look at the separate kingdoms makes it impossible to use in that way. ðarkuncoll 19:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I will agree to such an arrangment, only if the title of this article is changed. Eitherway, there's gotta be a distinction between kingdoms. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree on the distinction between kingdoms, so I was hoping that my suggestion of an additional column indicating the kingdoms covered would suffice? For completeness you could annotate the column for instances where the total reign of a monarch covers more than one kingdom (a good example would be James VI and I). But in essense the list would achieve the aim of listing the longest reigning monarchs first in an unbroken list, and I think as a source of reference for readers this would be useful.

For the title of the article, well this has been discussed below, we could keep it the same but have a cut-off at a certain point, or list them all and retitle the page something along the lines as suggested below ("List of British Monarchs by length of reign etc). Ds1994 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that if you add on the days until the current Queen's reign surpasses the reign of George III to the current length of time the Queen has spent on the throne given in the table, that the date doesn't match the date that has been calculated as the correct date (12th May).

The amount of days between the start and end of George III's reign I have calculated (using the website that is suggested on this discussion page) as 21,645. Using the same website to calculate Elizabeth II's reign from her day of ascendency to 12th May 2011 I calculated that her majesty will have been on the throne for 21,646 days, meaning that 12th May 2011 is definitely the date which Queen Elizabeth II's reign will surpass that of King George III.

However, Elizabeth II's reign (as of 15th April 2011) is measured in the table on this page to be 59 years, 68 days long. George III's reign is measured to have been 59 years, 96 days long. This suggests that Elizabeth II has 28 days on the throne to go before her reign is the same as that of George III, 29 days to go until she surpasses his reign. There are 15 more days in April from today, and so if we remove these from the equation (29-15=14) then we are left with 14 days into May. That would implicate that it will be on May 14th 2011 that Queen Elizabeth II's reign surpasses that of King George III, and it will be on this day that her majesty's reign duration in the table will be "59 years, 97 days". We know this is not true, which therefore suggests that there is a flaw with the timer in Elizabeth II's row on the table.

I don't know what could have made this error occur, I can't logically deduce any one specific thing that would cause the timer to miscalculate by two days. The important thing is: how do we fix it?

If I have made an error somewhere in my calculations and there is no problem, I apologize profoundly.burbridge92 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Your math is correct, and here is the proof:

• George III: {{age in years and days|1760|10|25|1820|1|29}} = 59 years, 96 days
• Elizabeth II on 12 May: {{age in years and days|1952|2|6|2011|5|12}} = 59 years, 95 days
• Elizabeth II on 13 May: {{age in years and days|1952|2|6|2011|5|13}} = 59 years, 96 days
• Elizabeth II on 14 May: {{age in years and days|1952|2|6|2011|5|14}} = 59 years, 97 days

I am pretty sure the reason is leap years. A year counts as a year regardless of whether it has 365 or 366 days. Imagine a person served in some office from 1 January 2008 to 1 January 2009, and her successsor held that office from 1 January 2009 to 2 January 2010:

• 1 January 2008 to 1 January 2009 (days): {{age in days|2008|1|1|2009|1|1}} = 366
• 1 January 2008 to 1 January 2009: {{age in years and days|2008|1|1|2009|1|1}} = 1 year, 0 days
• 1 January 2009 to 2 January 2010 (days): {{age in days|2009|1|1|2010|1|2}} = 366
• 1 January 2009 to 2 January 2010: {{age in years and days|2009|1|1|2010|1|2}} = 1 year, 1 day

Both monarchs' reigns started during leap years, but Elizabeth's began before the leap day, so her first year has an extra day, which means one day is taken from the "days" part of years and days and put in the "years" part. The second missing day comes from the turn of the century. Each monarch reigned during one, but 1800 wasn't a leap year while 2000 was. Thus, two extra leap years for Elizabeth means the year-and-day counting method is off by two days. -Rrius (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added a pure count of days, which should help avoid any confusion being caused by the year-and-days count. -Rrius (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The discrepancy is caused by the fact that 1800 was an "extraordinary common year" and the fact that Elizabeth II was reigning for the extra day in the leap year in which she came to power, as you pointed out. The problem was that measuring reigns in years/days can lead to inaccuracies due to these discrepancies between years. I calculated the difference between 25th October and 29th January to be 96 days (as given for George III's reign) and the difference between 6th February and 16th April to be 69 days (as currently given for Elizabeth II's reign) so those figures are definitely correct, and it's good to leave them in the table for reference purposes for that fact. However, the actual number of days definitely needs to stay in the table for the ranking. I didn't know how to fix the problem, thank you Rrius.burbridge92 (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Is that right? In order for Elizabeth II to become the longest reigning British monarch, she has to be Queen until 9/09/2015 to tie ( extra day added because of leap year 2012), and 9/10/15 to break Queen Victoria's record (PershingBoy)205.204.248.86 (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

May 14th 2011 will become No. 2 breaking King George III's record.

I'm not sure about Queen Victoria, I'll have to check that one, but you're wrong about when Elizabeth II will surpass George III. Elizabeth II will surpass George III on May 12th 2011, not May 14th 2011. Check out the previous discussion topic ("Flaw with Queen Elizabeth II's timer") for an explanation as to why that is. If we were going by years/days you'd have guessed right, but years/days counts give inaccurate results, you have to count entirely in days to definitely get the right answer.Burbridge92 (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've checked Queen Victoria's reign and you're correct, the date currently given on this page is incorrect, here's the proof:

• Queen Victoria's reign: 23,226
• Queen Elizabeth's reign on September 9th 2015: 23,226
• Queen Elizabeth's reign on September 10th 2015: 23,227
• Queen Elizabeth's reign on September 11th 2015: 23,228

Therefore, the correct date that Queen Elizabeth II's reign will surpass that of Queen Victoria is September 10th 2015, as you suggested, and not September 11th 2015 as the page suggests. I shall correct this error.Burbridge92 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

How about times of day? Without bothering to check, I'm sure George III's time of accession and death were recorded, to within, say, five or ten minutes. What we don't know, of course, is when George VI died, a very unusual circumstance for modern monarchs. He was simply found dead in the morning. ðarkuncoll 23:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we please fix this article's title or divide up the article itself? GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Or indeed shorten it... say by removing all those scoring less than 25 yrs (sorry, Merry Monarch). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this. Is GD saying that the earlier monarchs were not British? ðarkuncoll 23:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The British monarchy began on May 1, 1707 - with the merging of the English, Irish & Scottish monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the present title—"British monarch" doesn't mean "monarch of all Britain" any more than "European monarch" means "monarch of all Europe". Scotland and England are in Britain; therefore a Scottish or English monarch is also a British monarch, no? Alkari (?), 12 May 2011, 00:15 UTC

There is an argument for having what's here correspond to the normal lists: List of English monarchs, List of Scottish monarchs, and List of British monarchs (with the latter running from 1707 to present). Completion of the Scottish section of this article would make the overall article quite long, making a division along those lines even more appealing. I proposed something along those lines above, but only GoodDay responded. -Rrius (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

When people are looking for such info, it's very unlikely they're going to be wanting only those since 1707, a date of virtually no significance in English history. ðarkuncoll 09:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

People want accuracy. The English monarchy & Scottish monarchy both ended in 1707, when they merged to become the British monarchy. By labelling Welsh, English, Scottish & Irish monarchs as British monarchs, you're promoting an inaccuracy. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No, they were in Britain, therefore they were British. There's no inaccuracy here at all. Furthermore, the logic of your proposal would lead to the splitting of the reigns of Anne and George III into two parts - why aren't you advocating that, too? ðarkuncoll 16:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

After 1707, there's splitting. Before 1707, there's mergeing. If yas won't split, then re-name it Longest-reigning monarchs in the British Isles, as that's what the article's current content is. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you advocate splitting the reign of Anne into two segments, pre- and post-1707? Because that's the logic of your proposal. ðarkuncoll 16:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Then you are creating an artificial distinction I'm afraid. Queen Anne reigned from 1702 to 1714, a single reign. No one would ever dream of saying she had two reigns. ðarkuncoll 17:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

She reigned as Queen of England, from 1702 to 1707. She reigned as Queen of Scotland, from 1702 to 1707. Then she reigned as Queen of Great Britain from 1707 to 1714. She reigned as Queen of Ireland from 1702 to 1714. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

To split her reign in two would distort the whole point of the list, the ranking of monarchs by length of reign. No one in this country sees it like that, I can assure you. ðarkuncoll 17:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

We could continue with this back-and-forth discussion, but it's a waste of time, as there's only 2 of us in it. Besides, I doubt you've got the time to contact every British person & get them to back your statement "...No one in this country sees it like that" . GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I happen to have quite a few history books, and biographies of monarchs, and the events of 1707 are hardly mentioned, if at all. All that happened in that year was a very slight increase in the number of MPs and Lords. They didn't even feel the need to hold a new general election, and, very tellingly, the Triennial Act, limiting parliaments to three years, kicked in three years after the last English general election. The significant change, referenced everywhere, occured much earlier, in 1603. Even the official royal website lists British monarchs from that date, and not 1707. ðarkuncoll 17:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Parliaments decided when the Kingdoms' merged, not the monarchs. We've had this old argument before, when you tried to claim that the UK was actually an expanded England. PS: You're free to continue this dispute at my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If the UK is not, in effect, an expanded England, then what is it? A union of equals? Hardly. ðarkuncoll 18:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's an argument that'll get ya nowhere. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"there's only 2 of us in it" make that 3. Splitting reigns like Anne or George III into two is artificial. Each of them had only one coronation. James VI/I and Charles II each had two, but theirs were unusual cases, the latter being because England being a republic when he was crowned King of Scotland. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There's more then British monarchs here, as evidence by the article content. If not a split, then a page move. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

All the monarchs here are British, reigning over a part of, or all of, Britain. ðarkuncoll 19:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So change it to List of longest-reigning monarchs in Britain, if in British Isles is too upsetting for some. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? And why don't you object to, say, List of English monarchs, since quite a lot of them weren't actually English - being Danish, Norman, French, Scottish and Dutch, for example? ðarkuncoll 19:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You reign as monarch of the Kingdom of England, you're an English monarch. You reign as monarch of the Kingdom of Scotland, you're a Scottish monarch, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And if you reign in Britain, you're a British monarch. ðarkuncoll 19:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no Kingdom of Britain. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So? I never said there was. There was (and still is) a Britain though. ðarkuncoll 19:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth II, was never a Scottish monarch, an English monarch or an Irish monarch. That's why the Scottish are peeved with the II & why future British monarchs will go by the higher numbering (future James will be James VIII - for example). GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You two can go back and forth all day like this. Clearly, "British monarch" can mean at least 2 different things. What we have to decide is what WE mean by that term, that is, get clear on exactly what this list is supposed to be providing, then name it in such a way that its purpose is clear and unambiguous. From earlier posts, it's obvious its purpose has never been settled. We need to attend to that issue first. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, British monarch means the British monarchy, as reflected in the article List of British monarchs. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

GD, Elizabeth II is an English, Scottish, and indeed Irish (though only part thereof) monarch. What on eath do you imagine the UK to comprise, if not those places? As for the number, it makes no difference, being a matter of royal prerogative. Edward I was actually the fourth Edward to reign over the English, for example. ðarkuncoll 19:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

She's not Monarch of England (for example), she's Monarch in England. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Which makes her English. ðarkuncoll 19:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

British overall, as she's also Monarch in Scotland, Monarch in Wales & Monarch in Northern Ireland. I get the impression, you'd want this article re-titled List of longest-reigning English monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you're not listening, you two. We have to get down to what "British" means in this context. It's from "Britain", but what exactly is Britain: the island of Great Britain? the British Isles? the Kingdom of Great Britain? the United Kingdom? What? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's these: The Kingdom of Great Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland & United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No GD, British is fine, and more accurate too. The basic thing is that splitting this article up destroys its whole point. People want to find records. ðarkuncoll 20:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-name it. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What is "its whole point", Tharky? That's the very issue we have to get clear about. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What other use does this article have, other than being a place where one can compare lengths of reign? This is not served by having three separate articles, or even splitting it up into sections, as is currently the case. ðarkuncoll 20:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-title the article, then. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

But you're the only one arguing for this, GD. ðarkuncoll 20:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it's the correct & accurate thing to do, if splitting isn't acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Only in your opinion, which is, quite frankly, mistaken. No one in this country restricts the use of "British" to events since 1707. Not even the kings who reigned at the time did so. ðarkuncoll 20:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-title the article. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, your constant barking of brain-dead, robotic instructions is pointless. If your previous arguments have failed to have the desired effect, then please provide new arguments, not just "do this", as if the rest of us are here to do your bidding. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"It's so useless". -- GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Much of this conversation has gotten useless, but I'd like to get it back on track by answering TharkunColl. I believe there are two main points: 1707 is of no import, and what to do about Anne. I think 1707 is important, both as a moment in British history (I doubt the Darien scheme would have happened if the Scots hadn't thought Union a thing to avoid) and as technical difference between what some monarchs reigned over and others did. That view is reflected in the fact that List of British monarchs only goes back to Anne. The second issue is what to do with Anne. I think the best answer is to list her full reign despite the change with a ref noting that from 1702 until 1707 she was Queen of the separate kingdoms of England and Scotland. Her reign at the England and Scotland lists would be treated similarly; her full reign would be used in the list, but there would be a note that she was Queen of Great Britain from 1707 to 1714. It is worth noting here that this is already how she and George III are dealt with. I would renew the point that if we finally go back and fill in Scotland, this page would get longer than it really should be. -Rrius (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What about those people who come here to look for records, and to compare monarchs throughout history? You'd be depriving them of that, which is probably the only reason they'd come. And who's to say it would be too long with all the Scottish ones? That is surely the most subjective of judgements. ðarkuncoll 08:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I find the first argument compelling. I still think the name should be changed. The current title implies that only the British monarchs who have reigned the longest will be listed, which isn't true. I suggest we change it, at the least, to

List of British monarchs by length of reign. Your argument in response to GoodDay has been that "British monarchs" includes England and Scotland. By that interpretation of "British", it also includes Mercia, Kent, and the like. I doubt there's much appetite for including all those Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, so I would suggest List of British, English and Scottish monarchs by length of reign, but I forsee an objection based on length. -Rrius (talk

) 09:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't in principle object to those suggestions for a name change. As for including the earlier monarchs, if, say, one of them had had an extraordinarily long reign, there would be a good case for including them too. None of them did, though. Unless you count legendary ones like King Arthur, but I'm not sure legendary ones count. ðarkuncoll 09:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comments above in 'Title of Article' (effectively Part I). I think a complete list of English, Scottish and British monarchs is a good idea, by descending order of length of reign, all in one list with an additional column to right (or left) stating the kingdom(s) for the monarch concerned. As suggested, where more than one kingdom is involved (such as James VI and I), the individual entry may be annotated with the lengths of individual reigns involved. In this way I believe we can provide a useful reference point for readers for the topic in question, without getting the list 'disjointed' in presentation. Ds1994 (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, someday, this article's title will be corrected. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Currently, the article shows Elizabeth II as having reigned for 59 years and 95 days, in second place.

George III in third place with 59 years and 96 days.

Huh? Logic follows that if accurate, George III would be listed in second place (96 days vs 95), or Elizabeth II's days should be adjusted to 97. Or George III's days adjusted to 94.

Am I missing something, somewhere? :-)

Dsf (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a known bug in the template {{age in years and days}} that it does not handle leap years correctly. Accession day was 6 February 1952, which was a leap year: but the template is ignoring the existence of 29 February 1952, so Elizabeth II scores one day short. George III's reign extended from the 18th to the 19th centuries, but 1800 was not a leap year - however the template is counting the non-existent 29 February 1800, so George III gets one day more than he should. So Geo. III should be down for 59 years 95 days, and Eliz. II for 59 years 96 days, as of 12 May 2011^[update]. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahh! I see. Very interesting and understood. Thank you very much; much appreciated. Dsf (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed it too... could the template be corrected in some way? --Krawunsel (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The template isn't doing anything wrong, it knows about leap days. The problem is that the unit "year" does not have a fixed length, so the value "59 years" might mean 21,548 days, 21,549 days, or 21,550 days. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The error with this template was actually pointed out in the discussion topic "Flaw with Queen Elizabeth II's timer". The place in the table should be determined by the "days" column, not the "years and days" column for the reasons mentioned in that topic.Burbridge92 (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the template qs is, George III, who reigned for 59 years, is listed toward the BOTTOM. Could someone please fix this error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.5.100 (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added 11 Scottish monarchs to complete the list after 1107. However, I was not able to go any further back due to the lack of clarity about the exact date in 1097 when Edgar, King of Scotland began his reign. OCNative (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

So is the list complete enough now that we can rename it

List of British monarchs by length of reign? (I realize there is still ambiguity over the term "British," but at least this would clarify that the page is more than just the longest-reigning ones.) Goustien (talk

) 19:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge sections

ðarkuncoll has argued for a unified list in which people can find rankings and records throughout history (see above, "Title of article, part II". As a first step toward this goal, I have merged the sections for United Kingdom and Great Britain into one sortable list, which can be sorted by days in reign or sorted by name of realm. If this is acceptable, I will continue to merge the English and Scottish sections into the single sortable list. Goustien (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they are considered separate countries and the consensus is to keep things how they are. You can start a discussion on here if you like, but I will revert your changes for now. Lord British (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand they are separate countries, and there was a discussion above about whether to split this article into separate articles for each country, but I think the consensus was to keep them on one page. My suggestion is to merge the four sections (four lists) into one list, but indicate the separate countries by means of a column labeled "Realm" or "Country" or similar term. As a sortable table, it could be sorted by the "Realm" column to see results similar to the current page, or sorted by the "Duration" column to see an overall comparison. This flexibility would allow a reader to compare, for example, the reigns of Henry III and George III. The concept can be seen in

List of longest reigning monarchs of all time, which includes a few monarchs of the UK, England, and Scotland, along with other countries in a single sortable list. Goustien (talk

) 16:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea. It also allows us to include Anglo-Saxon and Post-Roman rulers without cluttering up the page with tens of tables quite nicely. Lord British (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

For whatever reason, the list of monarchs of the United Kingdom by length of reign has been removed from this page. If the other section's regarding the monarchs of Great Britain, England, Scotland, and Wales are to remain, the United Kingdom section should remain also. This has no effect on the table that provides us with the overall top ten longest reigning monarchs. Burbridge92 (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

) 21:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)