Talk:List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign. 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've noticed that the templates for "age in days" and "age in years and days" as used to calculate the reign do not take into account days lost for the conversion of the calendar in the United Kingdom from Julian days to Gregorian days. As a result, in the template's George II's reign ends on the 14th October 1760 as opposed to the 25th October 1760 in order to compensate for the 11 missing days in September 1752. As someone has previously realised that this problem existed within the templates, can anyone explain what calendar the templates measure in, whether it's all in the Gregorian calendar or whether it converts to Gregorian at a certain period in time, as it may have an effect on the calculated reigns on other pages, List_of_longest_reigning_monarchs_of_all_time. Burbridge92 (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem's much more complex than one might think. See my just-posted discussion "Wikipedia talk:Age calculation templates#Possible widespread distribution of bad data based on age-calc templates" at WP:AGECALC. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I was worried that it was going to be a complex situation, alas, it is one that needs to be addressed. Burbridge92 (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge none of the monarchs of the states that existed prior to the unification of England (e.g. Kingdom of Wessex, Kingdom of Mercia, etc) reigned for long enough to be of addition to the top 10 listed monarch reigns on this page, however, seeing as all monarchs of the British isles dating back to the unification of England have been included in this list despite the title, wouldn't it be appropriate to list all monarchs in the history of the British isles? Burbridge92 (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Going through the monarchs of Wales I spotted that pre-unification Welsh monarch Llywelyn Fawr ap Iorwerth reigned over his micro-state in Wales for 45 years between 1195 and 1240, meaning that he qualifies for the top 10 list. His non-inclusion is not a serious issue while we don't have monarchs dating back that long on the list, however it is important we ensure that Elizabeth II is currently the second-longest reigning monarch (which is probably true). Burbridge92 (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Pawl of Glywysing apparently ruled for 60 years, a longer period of time than the current monarch. Burbridge92 (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Having gone through the lists of all monarchs of the British isles it came to my attention that there were multiple monarchs of long, albeit partially unknown, lengths of reign, including three monarchs which reigned for approximately 60 years. These monarchs clearly deserve a mention as long-standing monarchs, but we cannot be sure exactly how long they reigned for, so should they be listed in a separate table for unknown lengths of reign? Burbridge92 (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you noticed how the earlier you get in the Dark Ages, the longer the supposed lengths of reign are? That should, at the very least, alert you to the fact that they are not wholly reliable. If you're going to include them, then why not, for example, Drest I of the Picts, who supposedly reigned 100 years? ðarkuncoll 11:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, very few of the monarchs in the British isles have very long reigns, the further back you go generally the shorter they get, with a few exceptions. However, with regards to Drest I of the Picts there is no start date or end date given to his reign, it is just pure speculation. No one has found any evidence to suggest he reigned for all of that time. It is purely tradition that suggests that he reigned for that long, as opposed Llywelyn the Great, who we're actually pretty certain reigned for approximately 45 years, that's not a fact that's in much dispute.

However, I agree that they're not wholly reliable, the records are incomplete, and only give us a reasonable estimate based on known facts, not complete dates down to the day and month. That is why I posted this discussion topic, due to those monarchs having a reasonable claim to be included in the section, but not a completely known reign length. The same issue can be found on the List of longest reigning monarchs of all time(which coincidentally includes monarchs such as Pepi II Neferkare and Taejo of Goguryeo whose reigns are given as upward of 90, figures which are highly disputed by historians), and has been dealt with through separation of complete dates from incomplete dates.

While we're talking about the "top ten" table, I think there's other points to be made. Firstly, only nine monarchs are included in the section, which I'm guessing is because of Llywelyn the Great's previous removal (as he's mentioned further down the page and I imagine someone else added him to the top ten ranking beforehand). Secondly, the layout for Elizabeth II, the previous colour and font scheme is used on many other pages such as List of British monarchs by longevity, List of longest reigning monarchs of all time, List of longest ruling non-royal leaders, List of last surviving World War I veterans by country, etc, and I have never seen the current scheme used, nor does it stand out aswell, so why the change? Regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

In reverence of this edit: [1] we need to establish which historical states we count on this page. The lead says "the Principality of Wales from 1170 AD" but according to his page, Llywelyn reigned for 45 years as the "Prince of Gwynedd", but only 22 as the "Prince of Wales". I realise the reigns and their confidences to be somewhat lesser in clarity than the more recent monarchs, but did the Welsh state of Gwynedd and its monarch hold the role as the ruler of the entirety of Wales? Are we to count the King of the Picts to be monarch of the entire of Scotland? --George2001hi (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

We certainly do need to specify from which year we start including monarchs. This appears to be the cause of much debate on this page. It's something to work towards in future. Burbridge92 (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

At Talk:List of longest-reigning British monarchs/Archive 1#Title of article, and Talk:List of longest-reigning British monarchs/Archive 1#Title of article, part II, there was discussion of the title of the article. But it went back and forth without producing any change, although some editors were left somwhat dissatisfied.

I tried to get us to focus on the core issue: What is this article about? Once we were all in agreement on exactly what it was that we’re telling our readers and why we were doing this work, then its title would more or less fall into place. But I saw little interest in that topic; all the hot air was about peripheral issues.

I'd like to revisit this issue. I have always believed that what we're trying to achieve here is to show:

• all the kingdoms that have ever existed in any part of the British Isles
• all their monarchs, sorted by length of reign within each kingdom, and
• a summary table showing the top 10 longest-reigning monarchs from any of the above kingdoms.

We now say in the lede (I've reformatted it for ease of comparison):

The following is a list, ordered by length of reign, of the monarchs of

• the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Northern Ireland after 1927),
• the Kingdom of Great Britain,
• the Kingdom of England since 925 AD,
• the Kingdom of Scotland since 1107 AD and
• the Principality of Wales from 1170 AD.

Is this the same thing as my concept above? Not exactly, as it misses out the pre-Norman kingdoms in England (Essex, Mercia), the High-Kings of Ireland, the Danish rulers etc. But for the purposes of research, and recognising most people will not be interested in the kingdoms that predated these lists, it's still a very handy collection of information. So, it meets the brief (or, my concept thereof) reasonably well, on balance.

So, now to the title. There are two big issues:

• "List of longest-reigning British monarchs" does not reflect what we say in the lede.
  • The title might lead one to believe it includes all the kingdoms that have ever existed in Britain (whatever "Britain" means), but it doesn't. However, to exactly specify in the title which kingdoms are included and from which dates, would produce a title that's as long as the lede. So we have to compromise.
  • The title might lead one to believe it shows only the top few longest-reigning monarchs of each relevant kingdom, but it shows all of them.

• the term "British monarchs". As we know from Terminology of the British Isles, "British" means different things in different contexts. Here, it could mean monarchs of the Kingdom of Great Britain, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is, since 1707 only. But it's not just those monarchs. "British" therefore has to have a geographical meaning – but again, is it restricted to the island of Great Britain, or does it include all the British Isles? Well, it includes Ireland (except for the High-Kings of Ireland), so it definitely goes beyond Great Britain.

Given the great potential for confusion, we need to replace "British monarchs" with something like "monarchs in Britain" (where Britain is understood to not just mean the island of Great Britain). (NB. It couldn't be "monarchs of Britain", because the rulers of Scotland and Wales, and England for much of its history, never purported to rule all of Britain.)

So, List of longest-reigning monarchs in Britain. Is this OK? No, because it isn't just about the longest-reigning monarchs. It's about all the monarchs (of the kingdoms we're choosing to include), sorted by length of reign. The summary table of the top 10 longest-reigning monarchs from all the kingdoms is just one tiny bit of the article; a summary, if you like, of the main lists that are the guts of the article. We could even relocate the Top 10 table to the bottom of the article without any loss of functionality.

So, how about List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign? This would be my definite preference.

(One could validly argue for List of selected monarchs in Britain by length of reign, or List of monarchs of selected monarchies in Britain by length of reign, but I'd be just as happy without those formulations.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "longest-reigning" should be replaced with "by length of reign", since this page isn't limited to monarchs with long reigns. I'm not convinced that "monarchs in Britain" is really necessary, though: "British" can perfectly well mean "in Britain" (among other things), and "List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign" seems undesirably verbose to me. Alkari (?), 28 December 2011, 00:20 UTC

List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign is exactly one two-letter word ("in") longer than what you just agreed to, List of British monarchs by length of reign. Whatever arguments you may have against my suggestion, verbosity is hardly a serious charge. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Louis XIV is listed as the monarch whose reign Elizabeth II must surpass if she is to become the "longest-reigning European monarch". However, Bernhard VII of Lippe, also a European monarch, reigned for 81 years, 234 days, making him the second longest-reigning monarch in history after Sobhuza II, and thus, is the longest-reigning monarch in European history. Considering this, shouldn't Bernhard VII be listed as the monarch Elizabeth II has to surpass in order to become the longest-reigning monarch in European history? Burbridge92 (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, it seems I've already brought this issue up, another user undoing a previous edit of mine indicated that I hadn't brought this up for discussion. The previous one comes under the title: "Louis XIV of France". Burbridge92 (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

From Principality of Lippe, it doesn't appear he was a monarch. -Rrius (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There's an issue of inconsistency here. The inverse is on the page List of longest-reigning monarchs, on which Bernhard VII is listed (and ranks as the second-longest reigning monarch with a verified length of reign after Sobhuza II, and there was no move to remove him as a result of that debate, as he was deemed to be a monarch. It doesn't particularly bother me which way the change goes (whether he is listed as the longest-reigning European monarch on here, or if he is removed as a monarch on the other page), but a change is needed if the contradiction is to be removed. Burbridge92 (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Except it isn't. Consensus at that article does not require anything at this article. Each article is managed independently, and we don't have to accept an apparently wrong-headed decision made elsewhere. -Rrius (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Aye, I understand that. It's just irritating that wrong-headed decisions are allowed to exist as they are, I feel it takes away from Wikipedia when it's own pages contradict each other due to said decisions. Anyway, besides that, forgive my lack of knowledge on the matter, but what is it on the Principality of Lippe page that should draw me to the conclusion that Bernhard VII was not a monarch? Thanks for the response. Kind regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Why does the picture of Henry III say 'EDVARDUS'? Could it mean that it actually is Edward's picture?

Wouldn`t Elizabeth II surpass Queen Victoria on september 11, 2015 rather than sep 10? I counted Sept. 10th as the 216th day of her 63rd year of reign, making the 11th one day more than Victoria. 101090ABC (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You have to count by actual days, not by years-and-days. There was no leap day in 1900, but there was one in 2000, which results in 23,226 days for Vicki, a feat Liddy will reach on 9 September 2015 and surpass the following day. -Rrius (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign. 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

Several monarchs in the English table have two reigns combined to make their total reign, but the total reign isn't displayed, and this information should really be displayed, seeing as this is what they are ranked by (the most noticeable issue is with Edward IV of England whose reigns of 9 and 11 years stick out like a sore thumb between the reigns of James I and William I, who have reigns of 22 and 20 years respectively). I suggest that the total length of reign is added to these particular monarchs, with the respective separate reign lengths listed in brackets). That way there would be some consistency to the table, in the case of the example already mentioned we'd have:

• James I: 22 years, 3 days
• Edward IV: 21 years, 211 days
• William I: 20 years, 258 days.

Any thoughts?

Kind regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Would be nice if the tables also listed the birth date, or age at start of reign, or similar. 202.74.216.168 (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I disagree. This information would serve no useful purpose, it would have no effect on any of the important information. Burbridge92 (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As of today (4th June 2013) there is much media interest in the 60th anniversary of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth 2nd. Yet a look at this page states she has been queen for 61 years not 60. Why is this? Is it because there is a difference in becoming queen and her coronation? If so then perhaps it would be worth a mention to include that there is a difference in time between becoming monarch automatically upon the death of the preceding monarch and ones coronation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.107.172 (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

There is indeed a difference: accession to the Throne occurs automatically upon the death of the previous monarch, while the coronation ceremony may take place much later – or, as with Edward VIII, not at all. In Elizabeth II's case, she became queen on her father's death (6 February 1952), and the length of her reign is calculated from that date, although she was not crowned until the following year. Coronation of the British monarch may be helpful on this point. Alkari (?), 5 June 2013, 01:03 UTC

Am I incorrect, or does the table imply that Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth I's reigns overlapped between 1558 and 1572? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.94.71 (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The longest claimed reign was that of James Francis Edward Stuart (the "Old Pretender"), whose reign as King over the Water lasted 64 years, 3 months and 16 days as the Jacobite pretender to the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland, then to the thrones of Great Britain and Ireland (17 September 1701 – 1 January 1766).

As I misunderstand it, the Jacobites consider(ed) the Act of Union invalid, being enacted by an usurper, and thus deny that there is a throne of Great Britain — so this sentence is a bit like saying a Capetian heir claims the throne of the Fifth Republic. I'll remove "then to the thrones of Great Britain and Ireland" someday, unless a contrary argument is offered. —Tamfang (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that this will occur on 9/11 2015?--90.215.76.144 (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No, because it won't. The date when Queen Elizabeth II draws even with Queen Victoria will be September 9, 2012 (when both will have reigned for 23,227 days) and Elizabeth will surpass Victoria on September 10, 2012 (23,228 days). What's more, if you look at the section on the page entitled "Current monarch", you'll see that this information has already been laid out for anyone interested. Burbridge92 (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The article says, correctly, that Victoria died at 23,226 days; so mention of 23,227 (for level) is wrong. 2012 for Elizabeth is also wrong: less than 62 years is well short of Victoria's record. It is true that 63 years plus 216 days takes you to September 10th, 2015 for Elizabeth. But February 6, 1952 plus 23,226 days takes you to September 9 as noted by the first contributor. The mistake is in assuming that all years are equal in length. In particular, the year 1900 was only 365 days long, while 2000 was 366 days long. This problem is avoided by doing the whole calculation in days instead of in imperfect years. Levelness (if it occurs) will be on 9/11 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.178.252 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the correct date is 10 September 2015. 6 February 1952 plus the 23226 days of Victoria's reign plus the additional day Elizabeth must reign to "exceed" Victoria = 10 September 2015. Do not use Excel for these calculations: it thinks 1900 was a leap year, so if you use it you will have an extra day. - Nunh-huh 20:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Victoria reigned for 63 years, 7 months, 2 days, 16 hours, and 30 minutes (± 2 hours). Elizabeth's reign will equal Victoria' at 7:30 p.m. UTC on 9 September 2015. See the article at Warren Gaebel, BA, BCS, MBA for the detailed calculation (including the calculation of the ±6.5 hour maximum error). It is possible that Elizabeth's reign may equal Victoria's on 10 September as late as 2 a.m., but 9 September is a more likely date. 174.92.78.96 (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an incipient edit war about the 9th or 10th of September 2015. As I understand it, on the 9th, Elizabeth regnal length will match that of Victoria, and on the 10th it will surpass it by one day. In fact, an earlier version of this page listed two dates, one for equaling and one for surpassing. But surely if she matches Victoria on the 9th, then she will also surpass Victoria immediately thereafter, just not by a full day. I suggest that the way to resolve this issue is to settle on the 9th and change the rest of the sentence to capture the salient facts. Something like "On the 9th, if still reigning, she will equal and then surpass the reign of Victoria". YBG (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia is committed to pretending that the Act of Union combined two kingdoms that were equal in every way, and created an entirely new kingdom that was completely distinct from its predecessors, but couldn't we have a list that includes English and British monarchs without counting Scottish ones? RodCrosby (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I've seen this page vandalized several times by people who insist September 10, 2015 is the day that Elizabeth overtakes Victoria's reign. It is not. September 9, 2015 is the day, and it has been worked out by many sources including Buckingham Palace. Here is the most recent reference to it in BBC News. The Queen will be opening a line of Scottish Rail which coincides with her achievement - on September 9, 2015. Could someone please use this as a citation in the main article? I don't know how to do it. Thanks. Queen to open new Borders railway

The truth is we cannot say for certain that the actual day is the 9th, but on the 10th we can say for certain that she has surpassed Victoria. RodCrosby (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, we have 9 September in the second paragraph, and 11 September in the "Elizabeth II" section at the bottom, which is surely contradictory. Still, not long before those dates arrive. Rothorpe (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the continued vanadalism of this page regarding the date AND TIME at which Elizabeth II will overtake Victoria's length of reign. Buckingham Palace themselves have done the calculations DOWN TO THE HOUR. It occurs at 5:30 pm BST on September 9, 2015. The BBC is reporting that Her Majesty The Queen will acknowledge the event during the opening of a Scottish Borders rail line. Why is this so hard for people to understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8500:79D4:D9D6:2F1C:D91A:3DFC (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a guesstimate. Only on the 10th can it be said for certain. RodCrosby (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It's NOT a guesstimate, it's MATH. Academics have done the calculations down to the hour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8500:79D4:1D5E:73B2:5EEB:25E7 (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the issue here is using WP:RS, and it seems a general-circulation newspaper quoting Buckingham Palace is as good as it gets, unless someone can find a reference on [2]. YBG (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody knows at what time, within a 9 hour window, the Queen's father died in 1952. Taking the most restrictive guess would result in a record-breaking date of 10th September, which is the one we should go with. RodCrosby (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I've added a link to the royal website. In the banner on the front page, it states September 9 is the date (under "length of reign" on the banner, it changes). If anyone can fix the citation, though, I would appreciate it. I cannot find on the help page to fix it the way it should be.207.155.65.116 (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

What I think Rod Crosby is missing is that a new monarch cannot be declared until the old one is known to be dead. Even if George VI had died the second after his head touched the pillow, his reign did not cease until his body was discovered the next morning, because for the whole of the night of 5-6 February, everyone assumed that he was still alive. The length of Elizabeth II's reign can therefore be calculated from the discovery that the king was dead, and, using the length of Queen Victoria's reign as a comparison (23,226 days and about 9-11 hours) we get to the evening of the 9 September, 2015; and it cannot possibly be any later than that. 24.181.167.211 (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that such an 'important' and recent death as George VI should have this kind of margin of error. Surely, the death certificate should have a time of death entered by the doctor who examined him and pronounced him dead? This, then is the point at which he became officially dead regardless of what his vital signs may have been earlier. Btljs (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Did Victoria become Queen at a precise time of day? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

William IV died at approximately 2am. Nothwithstanding the matters alluded to in 24.181.167.211's post it is still possible the record is not broken until early on the 10th. RodCrosby (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess it comes down (partly) to agreeing the appropriate unit of measurement for the reign of monarchs - days or minutes? But if we assume that the present Queen's father also died at 2am, the sums become easier. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

They hadn't quite expected George VI to pass away exactly when he did. They knew he was in bad health. They planned for succession in case he died, but he was thought to be on the mend the night he died, so they weren't exactly watching him closely. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 16:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there must be a margin of error between the time he retired to bed and the time he was discovered to have died the following morning. His article does not mention any times at all, just that he was found dead on the morning of 6 February. I guess no one will ever know for sure. 2am seems like a likely mid-point, for the purposes of estimation. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It is now 6 minutes beyond 17:30 GMT so update the list! 82.169.103.207 (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that such matters are properly dealt with on the basis of days, not hours and minutes. Such a level of precision is kind of silly. Do we really know exactly what hour William IV died, and then what hour Queen Victoria died, so that we can know exactly how many hours and minutes Queen Victoria ruled? And do we know what hour George VI died, making Elizabeth the queen? Even if these facts are recorded somewhere with that level of precision, does it matter? For historical purposes, dates are used -- not hours and minutes -- to denote important events. We talk about December 7, 1941 as "a date that will live in infamy." Not 7:48 a.m. as a minute that will live in infamy.

Christmas is celebrated on December 25. Does anyone know what hour Jesus Christ was born? Is that particular time celebrated, or just the day? When a deadline is calculated for the filing of a lawsuit or other legal documents, is the hour also specified, or just the date?

So let's just all agree that today (September 9, 2015) is the day that Queen Elizabeth matches Queen Victoria's reign, and tomorrow is the day she surpasses it. Captain Quirk (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Not really up to us to agree anything of the sort; we need to go on what reliable sources say. W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Captain Quirk's point is well made: minute precision is neither possible nor necessary. Rothorpe (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

How can Victoria and Elizabeth both have reigned for 23,226 days, but Elizabeth's years and days reign is one day less?  — Calvin999 08:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. I've just seen the note.  — Calvin999 08:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the note is at the bottom of the chart, where no one can see it. I was confused, too, until the explanation was brought to my attention. Captain Quirk (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Elizabeth II is now the longest-reigning UK monarch, please edit it. Mike4992 (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Request seconded. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 16:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thirded, this definitely needs updating, especially as it is linked from the Main Page. Why is it fully protected anyway? There's no explanation on this talk page. Modest Genius ^talk 16:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, today is the day that Queen Elizabeth's reign matches Victoria's. It won't actually surpass it until tomorrow. (Yes, I know there's a huge discussion about hours and minutes, but hours and minutes don't count in historical timelines. Just days.)

But I agree that fully protecting this page seems ridiculous. Captain Quirk (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

 Already done (not by me), but feel free to ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP. --NYKevin 19:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

As Monarch of Canada, Queen Elizabeth II is still surpassed by Louis XIV, who reigned much longer (72 years). So, in the end, she is still not our longest reigning monarch. I would be kind of happy though if she lives another 9 years, but it would still be very surprising for that to happen.

Except Louis XIV died more than 150 before the current Canadian state was founded. Strictly speaking, Elizabeth II has been the longest reigning Canadian Monarch since 1986, if measured from the date of confederation, or since 1968, if measured from the Statute of Westminster. Of course, if you measure from the date Canada achieved absolute independence from the UK, when her constitution was patriated, then Elizabeth II has been the only monarch of Canada! P M C 06:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Louis XIV was on the Canadian money before Elizabeth II, nobody disputes that fact. Look at this old Canadian coin, he's on it. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.166.87 (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between "Canadian money" and "money used somewhere that is now part of Canada". That is a 17th-century coin. Canada did not exist until 1867. Before then it was various British, French and Spanish provinces/colonies, and before then there was no organised government. If one proceeds on the basis that Louis XIV was a King of Canada, because he once controlled (then-French) territory there, then one will quckly find himself facing absurdities, like that Elizabeth II must be the second-longest-reigning monarch of France, because England once controlled territory in what is now France, or the longest-reigning monarch of Germany, because Heligoland was once British. Nonsense.

You'll be telling us next that Louis was also King of America. ...or was that Elvis? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

There are 3 issues here : 1) Colonies can be governed by monarchs too. 2) The monarchy of Canada is legally distinct from the British monarchy, because the titles and symbols are different. 3) See Canada (New France) for Canada as a distinct colonial entity before British rule. 174.91.216.58 (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

For more information, you can view the Wikipedia article "List of Canadian monarchs", which, although written by others, basically repeats what I just said. 174.91.216.58 (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The point being made is , I think, valid and fair. Louis XIV was a monarch over various territories in North America, but he was not a king of Canada (i.e. the state that exists today, rather than the erstwhile district of New France with the same name). That country did not yet exist in his time. Louis XIV did not have his head on Canadian money before Elizabeth II because there was no Canadian money until Canada came into existence in 1867. Personally, I think the "List of Canadian monarchs" article is poorly named. For sure, they were all monarchs in North America and reigned in places that are now part of Canada, but only 4 (Geo. V, Edw. VIII, Geo. VI, and Elz. II) were monarchs of Canada. Not to labour the point, but to claim Louis XIV as a King of Canada is akin to suggesting that Francois Hollande is the current 'President of Canada', because parts of Canada were once governed by France, or that Margrethe II of Denmark should be included in a list British monarchs, because parts of England were once under Danish sovereignty. P M C 18:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It beggars belief to argue that Canada didn't exist before 1867, because the BNA Act only changed the colonial constitution, but did not change the colonial nature of the regime. See Province of Canada, Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada East, Canada West, etc. Canada in 1867 did not gain control over its foreign policy and so remained a colony as it was before. For an example of how Canada existed before that time, you may read the Letters to the inhabitants of Canada, which was a letter from the Continental Congress asking Canadians to join the American Revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.166.87 (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Why would it beggar belief? Yes, I am quite familiar with Canadian history and the various entities that have existed in times past and used the name Canada in some permutation or other. However, and with apologies for the pedantry, you cannot conflate the various historical provinces called Canada with the modern-day federal state, which happens to have the same name. Just because those previous provinces existed in the same space, had the same name, and played a role in the formation of the country we call Canada now, it does not mean they were the same legal entity. It boils down to the difference in international law and constitutional theory between what are called continuing states and successor states. You contend that federal Canada is a continuing state, which is to say that the original French colony of Canada in New France (which became the British Province of Quebec in 1763, was split into the British provinces of Lower and Upper Canada in 1791, before being reunited as the British Province of Canada in 1841) became the dominion of Canada in 1867. That is just not the case. The ultimate (1841), British Province of Canada was divided into the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec when a new country (i.e. a successor state, not a continuing state) was created in 1867 through the confederation of the former province of Canada (as Ontario and Quebec) together with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. If you had to identify continuing entities for the French colony of Canada, they would be the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec (and arguably just the latter of those), not the federation of which they are a part.

The Letters to the inhabitants of Canada was referring to the former French colony, not the current state which, as I explained above, is not the same thing. The original document was actually titled in English 'Letter to the Inhabitants of the Province of Quebec'. It is the French translation that refers to the former colony, which had only recently been ceded to the British: 'Lettre aux habitans de la Province de Quebec, ci-devant le Canada' ('Letter to the Inhabitants of the Province of Quebec, formerly Canada').

I suppose, arguably, you could say that Louis XIV had a longer reign than the current Queen in Right of Quebec, but neither Louis XIV or the Queen of Quebec are Canadian monarchs (I know, the Queens of Quebec and Canada are the same human being, but the crowns are legally distinct). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petecollier (talk • contribs) 23:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is the successor state of the Kingdom of Great Britain, right? So that means you don't think we should compare Elizabeth's reign to any monarch born before 1800? That is so out of touch historically. Canada is arguably a long series of successor states, not a pure continuity, but that shouldn't stop us from comparing how long monarchs have ruled over us. When you look at the big picture, Canada has actually been governed as a monarchy for a longer continuous period of time than the British Isles themselves, because of Cromwell's republican government during the mid 17th century, which was contemporaneous to the beginning of Louis XIV's reign. 67.71.166.87 (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No, in regard to the former Kingdom of Great Britain the UK is a continuing state, not a successor state (it can be a little confusing because of the more general meaning of successor in everyday language, which doesn't apply here). If you're looking at UK history, then the best example of a successor state would be the Irish Free State, the precursor to today's Ireland. Modern Ireland is not just a bit of the UK with a new name, it is a different, newly created country that replaced the UK in most of Ireland. For that reason, I would suggest you shouldn't compare Elizabeth's reign to the length of an Irish President's term in office (or the reign of a French king...).

Of course, we can talk of Canada in a general sense, referring to some of the historical colonies that shared that name. We can also use "Canada" as a convenient modern label for discussing that geographical region at any point in history ("Canada in the time of the dinosaurs", "pre-columbian Canada" etc.). But we are not doing that here. Here, we are discussing heads of state. By its very nature, that means we are discussing specific, concrete, legal and constitutional constructs. You say it yourself, "Canada is ... not a pure continuity". That's the whole point I am making, that you don't seem to see. The federal constitutional monarchy called Canada that exists today is a new creation (1867). The old Canada did not get bigger (it's still there, just renamed Quebec). A new Canada was created and just named after the old, familiar province. The country reigned over by the Queen of Canada today is a separate country from the older entities that used to exist. It is legally distinct in every way it is possible for one entity to be legally distinct from another.

Perhaps I can explain it better this way. My father, of course, existed before me, indeed he was alive long before the idea of me was even imagined. He married my mother, and together they created me. Seemingly to confuse everybody, they decided to name me after my father, and so now he and I have the exact same name. Yet, although we are called the exact same thing and come from the same place, while we are very closely related to one another, and although he was instrumental in my creation, we are obviously not the same person. In a very limited sense, this is analogous to the situation of Canada. There was a place called Canada that existed way back. It federated with another place (NS & NB) and in so doing, it created a new place. To confound and spite future wikipedians, the old place and its partner(s) gave the new place they had created the exact same name as the old place.

Someone could say to me they had a 1950s passport/letter/photo with my name on from where I used to live, so I must be at least 60-odd years old. I would of course protest that I was not born until 74, and they are mixing me up with my father. At this point, they could look at the facts, apply common sense, and concede the point that the old passport/letter must be my father's, not mine. Alternatively, they could stick stubbornly to their guns and insist that, because Mr C and Mr C have the same name, are related, and are closely wound up in one another's history, they must in fact be the same actual person and that old Grandfather C was in fact Mr C jr's father. P M C 14:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, regardless of how one calculates the dates, there is an obvious inconsistency within the article itself. The chart says Victoria reigned for 23,226 days and that she reigned for "63 years, 216 days". Right below that, the chart says that Elizabeth II also reigned for 23,226 days, but then says "63 years, 215 days" (not 216 days). How can they both have reigned for the same number of days, but not the same number of years and days? Captain Quirk (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Leap years: specifically, the fact 1900 was not one. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that, but I don't think it makes a difference if you're measuring in years and days, because the number of days in that figure is simply the number of days beyond the last full year. However long a year is, it's a year, and that's that. Then it's just a matter of how many additional days are counted on top of the number of whole years. Captain Quirk (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be some glitch in the way the webpage calculates years and days, but because the formula doesn't appear in the "View source" view, I can't see what's causing it. Captain Quirk (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

No no no. I included a note and reference which explains it under the main table. Maybe I should have put it in bold flashing type. Vicky had 15 leap years in her reign and Liz had 16. Do the sum: (366X15)+(365X48) = (366X16)+(365X47) - 1. So once 63 whole years are counted in days, you have one more day to take out of Liz's reign. This leaves her one fewer to add on as change. You could consider the extra leap year as soaking up one more day for the same number of years. Btljs (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're saying. It makes sense now.

Part of the problem is that the explanation below the chart is, well, below the chart, where nobody can see it. It's not even on the screen when looking at Queen Victoria's and Elizabeth's entries because they're at the top of the chart. We need to put a footnote or asterisk beside Elizabeth's entry so readers will know to scroll down to see the explanation. Captain Quirk (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

How's that? Btljs (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! That makes all the difference.  :-) Captain Quirk (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Can the note be entirely removed once QEII has overtaken Victoria, i.e. tomorrow? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Or even now, as there are only about four hours left of today BST. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I've made it a general note which will always be true. After all you can't tell when people will stop comparing the figures with the date when EII's reign passed V's. Btljs (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Well maybe. I think once both figures are higher, very few people will ever notice that the figures in the two columns are discrepant. A hidden editor note might be sufficient. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Could the note be made any smaller? Today's mental maths puzzle: on what date did QEII get one more day than Victoria when expressed in single days? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC) p.s. candidiates who show their working will get extra points.

You're right: nobody noticed it before 11/9/2015 and probably won't again. Really there's a general rule here which applies to all the reigns and indeed any list of periods of time expressed both as total days and years & days; viz.

"For any given period of time longer than 365 days, if it is expressed in whole calendar years plus part calendar years (whatever unit is used to express that part e.g. fraction of a year, days, weeks etc.), the expressed figure will differ dependent on the starting date of the period."

So, if you start on 28 Feb 2000 and end on 26 Feb 2004 = 1,459 days = 3 years, 363 days; whereas start on 1 March 2000 and 1,459 days = 3 years, 364 days; but start on 28 Feb 1900 and 1,458 days = 3 years, 363 days; 1 March 1900 and 1,459 days = 3 years, 364 days.

In answer to your puzzle, it took Victoria 984 days to reach her first leap day; whereas it took Elizabeth only 23 days. So EII took one day longer to reach her first full year as Queen. Then it evened out after 3 years only for EII to fall behind again at the next leap year and so on, up to 1900 when Vic stayed a day ahead. Had Vic lived another year or so then she would have got two days ahead by 1902: Vic (1902): 23763 days for 65 years, 23 days; whereas EII (2017): 23765 for the equivalent 65 years, 23 days.

Tomorrow's puzzle: what about the length of George II's reign? (clue: the calendar changed in England in 1752) Btljs (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe we should add your full explanation as a additional footnote! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

But I see that someone else has now done his good deed for the day. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Prior to Elizabeth II becoming the longest reigning Monarch, this article did not put Victoria's length of reign into context with the sovereign whose reign was second to hers in length. Therefore, I've eliminated the reference to Victoria's second-place reign to keep the article unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8500:79D4:69B9:15EC:A481:872A (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this a complete list? If it is, that should be noted, as some of the other lists here are not. And if it is not, the inclusion of monarchs whose reigns can be measured in days seems faintly ridiculous given this list's title. (If they all were complete, it would be fine; but the others seem to be cut off beyond a certain length, at first glance. So why isn't this one?) Double sharp (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think they all are complete lists aren't they? Apart from the very first list which is the top 10 from all the lists. Btljs (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, OK. So why don't we say so? (^_-)-☆ Double sharp (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If he is known to have reigned from 1 January 1195 to 11 April 1240 for a total of 16,172, why is the length of his reign in years and days only an approximation? --Khajidha (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, but 1 January sounds like it is just an approximation. YBG (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

But then it is false precision to call it "1 January". Why not just say "1195"? (Or, for example, "early 1195", or "Jan–Mar 1195", or "Jan 1195", depending on how much precision we actually have on his dates.) Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, given the imprecision, we don't actually know if he ruled for longer than Elizabeth I or not. So maybe we should have two 8's in the list and no 9. Double sharp (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It is only an assumption on my part to say Jan. 1 is approximate. I haven't any RS that says one way or the other. But if it is just a guess, we should eliminate the false precision and probably formally recognize the tie in the numbering. YBG (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

His article refrains from mentioning the precise date when he started reigning: I imagine that it would have been included, if it were known. Maybe the precision is just "1195", as in that article. But I am way out of my depth here. Double sharp (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Having a look at this, it seems he was Prince of Gwynedd from 1194 (ish), having exiled Dafydd ab Owain at the Battle of Aberconwy. This seems to be the event that marks the start of his reign. I can find references to 1194 and 1195 as the start date. So I've changed the entry to reflect this uncertainty until someone with more expertise in this area sheds some light on this. Btljs (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that the portrait they use for when Elizabeth passes Victoria in length of reign be one of the ones that Annie Liebowitz took. Those photographs are fantastic, and very regal-looking....befitting the celebration of such a great milestone.

COTE DE TEXAS: Annie and the Queen — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenD1967 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Solar - solarstephen1967@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.103.244 (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's one of the much older pictures that doesn't a) does HM much justice or b) reveal the real Her in 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8500:79D4:65BE:784A:1D60:134 (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I was about to edit Offa of Mercia into a few tables when I noticed that pre-Alfred kings of the Heptarchy aren't included at all.

How do people think they should be addressed?

And, while I'm thinking about it, Roman Emperors? Richard Gadsden (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

In section 1 of the article I note that number 10 is listed as David II of Scotland at 41 years. However, I also note that Constantine II of Scotland is listed (in the Scotland section) at approx. 43 years (though accurate start/end dates are unknown). Is the uncertainty over the total period of his reign the main reason he is not on the list? Jabberjawjapan (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

When viewing this on my smart phone all I see is 10 images before any text...can we fix this? -- Moxy (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Have moved the images (of the top 10 rulers) into an image gallery... Hopefully this helps! Jabberjawjapan (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Although the current British monarch is descended from specifically Irish (and Scottish etc) royals, why is there no list for the specifically Irish monarchs? We have the 'Great Britain' and the Scotland, and the Welsh royals, but no Irish ones on the page. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree and have already added a section on the Kingdom of Ireland to fill in the gap of the "Three Kingdoms" (see also Wars of the Three Kingdoms).Jabberjawjapan (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The article mentioned that if Elizabeth II is still reigning as of 19 October 2034, she will surpass Sobhuza II of Swaziland as the longest verifiably reigning monarch in history. Well, my problem is, although unlikely, what if Bhumibol Adulyadej is also still reigning at that time? He started reigning a few years before Elizabeth II did, so if BOTH of them are still living and reigning as of 2034, Bhumibol Adulyadej will get the title as the longest verifiably reigning monarch in history, not Elizabeth II. (In fact, he will already get this tile if he reigned until some time in 2029) Hope you see what I mean. Thanks. --Dps04 (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You are spot on. On the one hand we're assuming she will live to the incredible age of 108, but on the other hand we're assuming Bhumibol won't even get to 107 and he will have predeceased her. Sounds pretty imbalanced to me. I've removed the offending words, and thanks for bringing the matter to attention. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Will User:Lord British please come here and have a chat about his reintroduction of this hypothetical that will never come to fruition? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright - it just seems unnecessary to remove it, if it can be kept with a condition. Lord British (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd take the view that it was unnecessary to have it in there in the first place. Even getting to the age of 98 to surpass Louis XIV's reign is quite a stretch, but she has her mother's genes and she's said she will reign till the day she dies, so that's not completely unthinkable. That's 98. But 108? Come on! Where's the encyclopedic value in telling readers about something that is so damn unlikely, it's off the scale? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"19 October 2034, she would surpass Sobhuza II of Swaziland as the longest verifiably reigning monarch in history, assuming Rama IX of Thailand were not still reigning at the time." There is still some problem with this sentence. The sentence above will NOT be true if Bhumibol dies between February 18, 2029 and 18 October 2034 - becuase Rama would have already broken Souhuza's record as the longest verifiably reigning monarch on Feb 18 2029. If this happens, the new record set by Rama would affect Elizabeth's date to surpass his record, even if Rama DID predecease her and ended his reign before 19 October 2034.--Dps04 (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There we have an even better argument for getting rid of the sentence entirely. It doesn't just depend on Rama IX dying at some time before her, it depends on him dying on or before a very specific date, before her. If he dies after that date but still before her, then she has to live that much longer to break the record, which will then be Rama IX's record and no longer Sobhuza's record. Hypotheticals have limited value as it is, but when they're qualified, and qualified in multiple ways, as this one is, their value shrinks to absolute zero. Let us do the right thing and give this sentence a decent Christian burial before it stinks up the place even more. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: Rama IX of Thailand (also known as Bhumibol Adulyadej) died in 2016, without setting a new record for longest verifiably reigning monarch. As of my writing this in October 2017, Queen Elizabeth II continues to live and reign. 108.52.189.78 (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)