Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

RfC for Queen Elizabeth II

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The opening of the RfC argues that the current entry on Elizabeth II misses the point of this list, and can also mislead the reader into believing has reigned for a longer period of time over certain realms. At the same time, though, participants who opposed the change also said that omitting realms would be confusing to the reader.

Some opposing this RfC noted that other monarchs have multiple kingdoms in their entries. George III, for example, features five nations, all of which began and ended at different periods of time. This point was rebuked as not comparable, as one nation was the predecessor of the other (ie. Great Britain became part of the United Kingdom).

While there is a slight numerical majority in favor of this change, the points raised by both sides are entirely dependent on how one interprets the list's function. On top of that, concerns over WP:RFCBEFORE were raised, noting that more and better options would've been made available had a discussion happened beforehand. Due to the lack of strength in the arguments and a very slight numerical difference, I see no consensus here. (non-admin closure) Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 02:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Currently, the article states that the Queen's reign in all her present realms began when her father died in 1952, which is actually not the case.

The case of PNG and Tuvalu

• Papua New Guinea actually invited the Queen to be head of state on independence in 1975. The country's Constitution states, "Her Majesty the Queen having been requested by the people of Papua New Guinea, through their Constituent Assembly, to become the Queen and Head of State of Papua New Guinea; and having graciously consented so to become, is the Queen and Head of State of Papua New Guinea". Before 1971, it was known as "Territory of Papua and New Guinea". So, to say that the Queen has reigned over the "Independent State of Papua New Guinea" since 1952 as its sovereign monarch is wrong, as there was no entity called "Papua New Guinea" until 1971.

• Before Tuvalu's independence in 1978, the colony was known as the Ellice Islands, and it was part of a bigger colony called "Gilbert and Ellice Islands". The Constitution of independent Tuvalu states, "On 1 October 1975, Her Most Excellent Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was graciously pleased to establish the Ellice Islands as a separate colony under their ancient name of Tuvalu". So, to say that Elizabeth II has been Queen of "Tuvalu" since 1952 is absolutely incorrect. The Constitution states, "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God Queen ..., having at the request of the people of Tuvalu graciously consented, is the Sovereign of Tuvalu and, in accordance with this Constitution, the Head of State". So, per the Constitution which went into effect in 1978, the Queen is Tuvalu's Sovereign at the request of the people of Tuvalu, not since 1952.

Other issues

Here are few other examples of how the current version of the article is wrong and misleading:

• Belize became independent in 1981. Before 1973, it was known as "British Honduras". It was a Crown Colony of the United Kingdom, so the Queen reigned in Right of the United Kingdom, not Belize's own sovereign monarch. So, it incorrect to say that Elizabeth II has been the sovereign monarch of "Belize", since 1952.

• Antigua and Barbuda achieved sovereignity in 1981. When King George VI died in 1952, the islands were part of the British Leeward Islands, and later in 1958 joined the West Indies Federation, both of which were British colonies. So, it is wrong to say that the Queen has reigned over "Antigua and Barbuda" as its sovereign monarch since 1952.

• Saint Kitts and Nevis became independent in 1983. Before that it was part of Saint Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla, which was a British Colony. So, Elizabeth II didn't become Queen of "Saint Kitts and Nevis" in 1952.

At her Coronation in 1953, the Archbishop asked the Queen, "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon..?" No explicit mention of many of her present realms like Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu, as these became her realms on independence, not in 1952.

Proposal

The Queen has reigned as a sovereign monarch since 1952 only in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. It's in these realms where she has been reigning for more than 70 years, which makes her the second-longest reigning sovereign in history. Also, these are the only countries left from her Coronation Oath that she is still monarch of. So, including any other countries here is inaccurate and misleading, and it creates clutter and misses the point of the article.

So, I suggest that the Queen's realms be whittled down to just these four realms, and a note may be added about the other realms of which she became sovereign after 1952. Peter Ormond 💬 00:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Support - @Peter Ormond I completely agree with your proposal. Your penultimate paragraph, in particular, really captures the issue here. Also, thank you for sharing with us some facts about the history of these countries and the Coronation Oath. I learned a thing or two from reading your comment. Hobbitron38 (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Agreed with Hobbitron38 who said what I would have, just more concisely. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'd rather Elfast & Skyring's version, which highlights the United Kingdom (though with a footnote bit showing 'only' Canada, Australia & New Zealand). If that isn't chosen? I'll accept Peter Ormond's proposed version, as my second choice. GoodDay (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

You are actually supporting the proposal, but want that to be presented in a different way. Peter Ormond 💬 12:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

My 'first choice' is a hybrid of Elfast/Skyring & your proposals. GoodDay (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - the list is about length of reigning, and lists all locations that came into and left their rule during the time. Variations in dominion are mentioned in George III and Frank Joseph I for example. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The Queen is listed in the list of monarchs of "sovereign states". Her case is different from George III and Frank Joseph I. Her many realms were not sovereign when she succeeded her father on 6 February 1952. Peter Ormond 💬 15:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

So list them in order of when her reign on them began. Again the list is longest reigning, about how long one was a Queen regardless of variations in dominion the length of reigning remains 70+ years. Mention all ruled and do not erase the history or just because over 70+ years it’s not simple. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Markbassett George III and Franz Joseph are not comparable to Elizabeth II. For George III, the article lists Great Britain and Ireland and then the United Kingdom. That's correct because Great Britain and Ireland were predecessor states of the United Kingdom. The same is true of Franz Joseph. The Empire of Austria was the predecessor state of Austria-Hungary. George III and Franz Joseph reigned over the same places as sovereign states, even though the names of those places changed. Elizabeth II, by contrast, started concurrent reigns in seven sovereign states in 1952. Three of them became republics, and some of her colonies became independent nations later. After 70 years, only four of her original realms are still monarchies. You're right that the article is about length of reign. Her length of reign is only 70 years long in those four countries, hence the other Commonwealth realms are not relevant. Hobbitron38 (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Markbassett Also, your proposal to list all of her reigns in order of when they began does not really make sense. What place would her 39-year reign in St. Kitts and Nevis have in a list of reigns where the shortest is 56 years? To simply state which of her reigns are historically-long and omit those which aren't, as we propose, does not erase history. It is simply to be accurate. Hobbitron38 (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• User:Hobbitron38 I believe you are misunderstanding the table from what your posts say. It does *not* say she ruled Tuvalu since 1952, it says she was a monarch since 1952 and no date is given for when that began at Tuvalu. That other rulers had changing dominions is comparable to that has occurred for The Queen. For all such, the ‘From’ column start of their reigning is the start of their being a monarch, as this is a list of longest reigning monarchs, and the dominions were not continuous for all of them. If you want to show later arrivals, the precedent is to show the year begun or ended for each State in the ‘State’ column and to list States by year that reign began instead of the alphabetical order shown in this section. It would be improper to exclude States and make it appear they did not happen. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Markbassett Because the table (in the current form) says she began her reign on 6 February 1952 and lists Tuvalu under State, the table is saying that she began her reign in Tuvalu on 6 February 1952. That's just the plain reading. For Elizabeth II's entry to be similar to that of George III, there would have to be parenthetical time ranges attached to each Commonwealth realm. However, that would only further highlight the reason not to include the countries that later gained independence. "Tuvalu (1978 - present day)" is a reign of only 44 years, so it doesn't belong in the column about her reigning for 70 years. Tuvalu is irrelevant in this particular case, because she is not the second longest-reigning monarch as Queen of Tuvalu. To put it another way, the Queen of Tuvalu is not the second-longest reigning monarch in history, but the Queen of Canada is. Legally, those are different persons, and that's based on the Statute of Westminster 1931.

  But again, there's no equivalency here between Elizabeth II and George III. Elizabeth II has reigned separately as the monarch of many distinct countries, in some for 70 years and in others for only 40 or 50 years. George III reigned as King in only two countries, which happened to be merged under a new name during his tenure. Hobbitron38 (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• User:Hobbitron38 This list is of longest-reigning monarchs, showing their years of reigning in the Reign column and States with any variation in the States column. As at George III for the Kingdom of Ireland which ceased to exist as a separate State. There is no need for confusion or incomplete information. And failure to list so very many States at all seems a far worse mistake than just a possible confusion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Markbassett I would agree that George III's reign in Ireland should not be featured in the list, because his reign in Ireland only lasted 40 years before that country was subsumed into the UK. Ireland's sovereignty was officially extinguished in 1800 and would not be revived until well after George III's death. His 40-year reign in Ireland does not belong here any more than does Elizabeth II's 41-year reign in Belize, not when the shortest reign in the list is 56 years long. Hobbitron38 (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• User:Hobbitron38 - Clearly we just view things differently- I think the table is years as a monarch and for George III the States should show all dominions ruled or else the table is misleadingly incomplete. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  That's fine, there's a note now that lists all of her other reigns so that information is not left out. Hobbitron38 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: The paragraph above the first table clearly states "recognised as sovereign for most or all of their reign" (emphasis mine). It is very clearly identifying that while it lists sovereign states, a reign does not begin at sovereignty. All states that have been sovereign for "most or all" of Elizabeth's reign should be included. This clearly means including states that are sovereign now, but were not at the beginning of the reign. El Dubs (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to change why I primarily oppose this change. I'm mainly opposed as I believe this RFC should not be occuring until after significant discussion, not just one user wanting it the way they thought of, posting it and asking for people to vote. This RFC should be abandoned while there's no clear consensus while we discuss the merits between different options, why we're want those, and come to as few options as possible. Remember, Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, voting should be our last resort. El Dubs (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

What is "most"? In general English usage, "most" would imply some fraction considerably above a mere majority. Sladnick (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

A simple majority is a perfectly acceptable interpretation of "most". To clear confusion, we could very simply add years of sovereignty as has been done with other monarchs in the same list. El Dubs (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree with what El Dubs has stated above. The table is a list of "monarchs of states that were internationally recognised as sovereign for most or all of their reign." As I stated in the original RfC she was monarch both before and after independence. Ttutcha (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The list is unreadable now. Wikipedia articles should be useful to the broader public, not just curtailed to a handful of editors, when the two considerations come into conflict. There is no reason why sovereign states over which Elizabeth II was sovereign for part of her reign cannot be included in an explanatory note. Without such a note, in any case, the current poor layout of the article will lead many Wikipedia users into thinking that Elizabeth was Queen over all these realms since 1952 – the technicalities in the intro, which even extensive discussions here have difficulty making sense of, are not enough to clear up such potential, easily avoidable confusion. Sladnick (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose-ish. Or support-ish. Depends on how you look at it... I support the reduction of the sub-list of countries Elizabeth has reigned over since 1952 to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK. But, I don't support the exclusion of Jamaica from the overall list, since Elizabeth's 60 year reign as monarch of that country falls within the 25-monarch limit of this list. Way back when, the list looked like this. That seemes to be the best combination of accurate and concise. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Two versions acceptable - I'm content with either "United Kingdom - with Canada, Australia & New Zealand in drop-down note form" (as the UK is the realm Elizabeth II is the most associated with & lives in, per WP:WEIGHT) or "United Kingdom, Canada, Australia & New Zealand" as those are the only sovereign states she's reigned over for 70+ years. What I've seen so far as the sticking point, is what to do with the 11 other realms currently existing & the 17 former realms. So it all comes back to the 'big question yet again'. Does this particular page center on the 'monarch'? or does it center on the 'reign(s)'. GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  This here is why I think this second RFC was rushed into. There was no discussion before the RFC as there was with the previous one, it was just a new RFC saying "Here's my idea, please vote" without any discussion of what the options should be. Ideally as a community we should whittle the options down to as few as possible, preferably two. There's no need to rush into voting. El Dubs (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  A bit late to end it now. Will be interesting to see the results. GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Elfast (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Elizabeth II is not only queen of the UK, Canada, NZ and Australia, and she has been queen of all her other realms since 1952 too as well. I didn't favour Option B in the RFC above, I'd have preferred to keep the other realms as "unranked" as appropriate (realistically that applies to Jamaica only), but given the result above the only logical conclusion is to include all of her realms in one, as indeed Option B explicitly said. To strike Jamaica off the list and let it fall through the cracks, simply because it became independent after the start of her reign there, would be bizarre and unwarranted.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Aside from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK, none of the other current Commonwealth Realms were realms when Elizabeth acceded to the thrones in 1952; they were colonies or territories of the UK. Jamaica doesn't have to drop off the list; as I pointed out above, it can still be included the way it was before. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it cannot be included like that. The version you show ranks Elizabeth as 23rd for her Jamaica reign, while also ranking her 3rd (and only 3rd) for four other realms. That makes no logical sense whatsoever, and is the entire reason why this whole debate has been started. I literally don't care whether we (a) include Jamaica as unranked (option A2 above), (b) rank the UK,Canada,NZ and Australia as four separate entries while also ranking Jamaica (option A3 above), or (c) list all commonwealth realms under the 1952 umbrella as it stands now (option B above, and the version which gained consensus in the RFC). What we cannot do, though, and which was expressly rejected by the above RFCs, is to revert to the prior status quo (option A1).  — Amakuru (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, it makes perfectly logical sense if you look at it from the perspective of this list is about the lengths of reigns of monarchs, not of persons. The Queen of Jamaica is not the same monarch as the Queen of New Zealand. Regardless, I can see now this is a purely academic discussion as the choice has been made to make things more complicated than they need to be and here we are with the consequences. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Sorry if I'm late to the party. I made a few edits a couple of weeks ago and suddenly when I came back there were a lot of edit wars and an incredibly long discussion here. Listing all 15 states gives the impression (at least to me), that Elizabeth ruled 70 years in all of them, when in reality that lenght only applies to 4 states. A simple footnote mentioning her other realms would be enough, I don't get the problem here. Tintero21 (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support: I am very much against the proposal invoking WP:WEIGHT to reduce the list of reigns to just the UK. QEII is the sovereign of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, has been since her accession, and to not include them would be highly misleading if not outright incorrect. On what to do regarding her other Realms and Territories, I believe that an explanatory footnote is a reasonable compromise, as are other various variations on the idea. As long as readers are reminded of the legal distinction in reigns between the various Monarchs of the Commonwealth Realms, the notes seem reasonable. To be frank, I'm mostly just against the UK-primacy proposal, which I find to be factually incorrect. JustAnotherEditHere (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion II

Recommend adopting the condensed version by Elfast & Skyring. The United Kingdom is the realm that Elizabeth II is the most associated with & also the realm she resides in. But with a footnote, which mentions 'only' Canada, Australia & New Zealand. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC). Comment amended 08:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as that version lists realms that have a shorter reign with nations that are still currently increasing in reign length. Listing a four-year Pakistani reign together with a seventy-year Australian reign is not useful and creates a lot of clutter. The Queen has been sovereign monarch equally in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom since 1952, and thus only these realms should be listed. Peter Ormond 💬 00:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I second this. Hobbitron38 (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with Peter Ormond.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

BTW - You should've widen this RFC's field, to include politics. At the moment, you only have it linked to geography\history. GoodDay (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: - Having seen the link below now as the example of whats being talked about here I don't agree with the data being displayed in the show/hide menu. That being said I'm not against having a show/hide menu in itself. But I'm not in agreement with what's being displayed here. Ttutcha (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better, to add this to the 'survey'? GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. I'm specifically refering to what you have been talking about in this 'discussion' and have added my comments already in the 'survey' Ttutcha (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank goodness this RFC isn't taking place, over at List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office. Of course, Elizabeth II's placement at that page is temporary & her successor's placement will be slightly different. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence and List of current reigning monarchs by length of reign. Peter Ormond 💬 00:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly, the article for the list of current reigning monarchs by length of reign correctly sets apart the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Jamaica from the other Commonwealth realms. Hobbitron38 (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I think I was in RFCs on those pages, years ago. Those were the results. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

You see what the results of the previous RFC leads to? Someone had added James VI of Scotland's English reign, which was correctly reverted. GoodDay (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with what appears to be the emerging consensus that we should only list the realms where she has been queen for 70 years, because those countries are the reason she is in second place on this list. Seems logical. Richard75 (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Could you add your vote to the survey above? Peter Ormond 💬 10:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That other article lists The Queen multiple times to include the States of her reign, whereas this table format lists all the states ruled in one row. One need not give a strongly incorrect impression that she never ruled anything but four States when one can simply continue the precedent of include the years along with the name. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Whether she ever ruled anything besides the four countries where she's reigned for 70 years, is irrelevant to this article. You want to include all of her realms because she's on the list, but she's only on the list because of four realms in particular, so those are the only ones that matter. Hobbitron38 (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The list is in order of how long they were rulers, to be consistent with the other entries where the States changed.

• e.g. George III ruled 59 years - 40 for Great Britain then 19 for the United Kingdom.
• e.g. Frank Joseph I ruled 67 years - 19 for Austria then 48 for Austria-Hungary.
• e.g. Ferdinand III ruled 65 years - 57 for Sicily and losing then regaining Naples.
• e.g. Phillip I at 67 years - 27 for Lippe-Alverdissen, then 40 for Schaumburg-Lippe. .

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Those examples are not valid comparisons. The monarchs you cite all reigned in the same places, under some different names. George III's reign in the United Kingdom was a continuation of his reign in Great Britain, which was always a sovereign state during his lifetime. He reigned for 59 years over the same country. Elizabeth II's situation is different because she has reigned in dozens of separate countries, some of which existed as countries in 1952 and some of which became countries later. She has dozens of reigns of varying lengths. She didn't reign for 70 years in Tuvalu. Her reign in Tuvalu starts in 1978 when the Crown of Tuvalu began to exist. That reign is not historically-long, but her reigns in UK, CA, AUS, and NZ are. Therefore, they alone belong in this list. Hobbitron38 (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

No, Ferdinand lost and then regained States, but that’s secondary ... All of these showed the precedent or format of State changes go in the state column, so the basic concern of this RFC is avoidable, a way of how to handle Tuvalu is clear. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't address Ferdinand, but he's not comparable to Elizabeth II either because she has not had any interruptions in any of her reigns. Some of her reigns started later and some of them have ended, but none of them (as far as I know) started and restarted like Ferdinand's did in Naples. Hobbitron38 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

"Any of her reigns", this is the concept I think is a core issue. A Monarch only has one reign, their reign. During a reign, a Monarch can reign over many states. But I cannot find any reference that these are referred to as some sort of plural of reigns.

Can anyone find a source that backs up this idea of a Monarch having a plurality of reigns? El Dubs (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I know this response is a few days late. The concept of plural reigns derives from the Statute of Westminster, which is crucial for understanding the concept of a realm within the Commonwealth today. Elizabeth II is somewhat unique in history because she is the concurrent monarch of many sovereign nations, largely because of developments in the second half of the last century (specifically, decolonization). That's why comparisons to George III or Ferdinand of Naples or Franz Joseph are unhelpful here.

I don't ask this argumentatively, but are you aware that the Crown of Canada is distinct and separate from the Crown of the United Kingdom? Do you understand that the Queen of Barbados was a different legal person from the Queen of Australia? The Queen of Barbados (since 2021) no longer exists, even though the person who was the Queen of Barbados is still alive and reigning elsewhere. Hobbitron38 (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Definitely aware that the Queen has many roles that are distinct entities, however the idea of reign we could surely take as having two interpretations:

1. Reign could relate to the entity, such as the Queen of the Sovereign nation of Jamaica, who's reign began when Jamaica began on 6 August 1962, Or;
2. Reign could relate to the person, Elizabeth II, who's reign started when her father passed, on 6 February 1952.

You're right that Eliz. II is unique, which is why the interpretation of this hasn't really come up before. With this in mind, I'd be curious of what part of the Statute of Westminster you think applies here.

Back to sources, I've never seen any Jamaican source preparing to celebrate the Queen of Jamaica's 60th anniversary this August. Nor any source suggesting the Queen of Jamaica has reigned for 60 years.

Nowhere that I can see takes the above first interpretation of Reign. Nowhere that I can find separates reign from the actual person. To show this, we'd surely have to show sources that identify The Queen's shorter "reigns" in other countries. But I don't think this happens.

I fully believe when it comes to "Reign", the second interpretation is the one that holds the most WP:WEIGHT.

I am happy to see anything that suggests otherwise, but I cannot find a single source anywhere suggesting the Queen has "reigned" for a shorter period in other countries. El Dubs (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I referenced the Statute of Westminster because that is the legislation that established the sovereignty of British dominions. Even today, Canada observes a national holiday on December 11 to commemorate the Statute of Westminster, because the law effectively granted independence to the country. The acts of the British Parliament ceased to apply to Canada, Australia, and other nations in 1931.

With regard to Jamaica, I suggest you might not find a Jamaican source about celebrating her 60th anniversary on the throne because the monarchy is apparently not especially popular in Jamaica and may soon be abolished. But, your statement begs the question, are there any sources that say the Queen has reigned in Jamaica for 70 years?

One need only consult the Jamaican constitution (https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Jamaica_2015.pdf?lang=en) which says in Article 68.1: "The executive authority of Jamaica is vested in Her Majesty." Article 34 also states that the Jamaican Parliament "shall consist of Her Majesty, a Senate, and a House of Representatives." This is significant because in the UK and the Commonwealth realms, the legitimate authority of the state is exercised by the "Queen-in-Parliament" or the "Crown-in-Parliament."

These articles, in effect, declare her to be the sovereign of the independent country that the constitution is organizing. In other words, her reign in Jamaica was established in 1962 by that country's constitution, not in 1952 by inheritance.

Additionally, your two interpretations present a false dichotomy. A reign relates to the entity and the person. You can't have a reign without a monarch, nor without a realm. Her 70-year reign doesn't just exist by itself. Her 70-year reign is based upon laws. Which laws? The law of the UK, the law of Canada, the law of Australia, and the law of New Zealand. All of those countries have laws that sustain a monarchy, and that's been true since 1952. Other countries have similar laws, but they're not as old, because they became independent later. We cannot just say "she's reigned for 70 years," as if that's one of her personal attributes. That statement is meaningless if we do not connect her reign to a place where a monarchy legally exists. That's why we have to be clear about where she's reigned for 70 years, where she's reigned for 60 years, and so on.

Lastly, I want to point out that that you're shifting the burden of proof onto interpretation 1, and presuming interpretation 2 to be true by default. Your comment essentially says, "I'm not persuaded there's any proof for the first position" (fair enough) "so therefore this second position has to be correct" (unwarranted conclusion). Hobbitron38 (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

None of what you're referencing really speaks to how we should interpret the term "reign" in such a unique situation though.

We can't offer "proof" of either side. You wisely pointed out this is a unique situation. I doubt anyone has really thought about it outside of how to reference it in an encyclopedia.

We can however offer indirect evidence. Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II offers plenty of examples of Commonwealth countries outside UK/Canada/Aus/NZ celebrating the 70th anniversary of the Monarch, that's some indirect evidence that the 70 year reign of Elizabeth is more important than say, the 60th anniversary of the Queen of Jamaica.

Take Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II, the Bahamas releasing stamps of 70 years of the Queen. But the Queen of the Bahamas hasn't been around 70 years. Or take the quote from the Governor-General of Jamaica: "I have the honour to convey to Your Majesty the felicitations of the Government and People of Jamaica on the occasion of Your Majesty’s Platinum Jubilee." The Solomon Islands celebrated Her Majesty's Platinum Jubilee, not the anniversary of the length of her reign over the Solomon Islands.

Obviously, you can already point out that no one is directly saying "Your 70 year reign over (insert country)", but it's pretty clear that these countries aren't paying attention to the anniversaries of the "Queen of the Bahamas", or the "Queen of Jamaica", the only interest is in Elizabeth's 70 year reign. There is just no reference to such a thing at all, but plenty to them acknowledging and recognising 70 years.

So I agree there's no direct evidence, I think there's plenty of indirect to say that the only reign that matters, is Elizabeth's 70 year reign in all these countries. El Dubs (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You're correct, her Platinum Jubilee attracted attention and congratulations from all over the world, even in non-Commonwealth countries. Here's a link to the US State Department recognizing the Platinum Jubilee (https://www.state.gov/on-the-occasion-of-her-majesty-queen-elizabeth-iis-platinum-jubilee-and-official-birthday/). The fact that a leader in Jamaica or a stamp in The Bahamas mentioned her 70-year reign does not erase the technical facts about when her reign began in Jamaica or when she truly became Queen of The Bahamas. This article is supposed to be factual, and not necessarily reflect popular perceptions. You may be right that few people even in the Commonwealth realms have any awareness about the distinctions, but the article should still be accurate. Her 70-reign has simply not been in The Bahamas, as you seem to agree. So therefore, how can the Bahamas be in the list next to 70 years? Hobbitron38 (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Pointing out that it can have other explanations doesn't take away from the fact that it is popularly recognised that she has reigned for 70 years in these countries, and actually, what is popular is really important on Wikipedia if there's no real proof of anything else. Because when it comes to interpreting definitions, popular use generally becomes de facto.

You say people don't have awareness of the distinction, so do you have a source proving this distinction? Because it cannot be just based on your interpretation. El Dubs (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I must have missed this response, hence my belated reply. Again, I referenced the Statute of Westminster and the Jamaican constitution. If those don't suffice, check out the Wikipedia article "Monarchy of Jamaica" (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Monarchy_of_Jamaica). I'll even quote a relevant excerpt:

"Elizabeth II, besides reigning in Jamaica, separately serves as monarch for each of fourteen other Commonwealth realms. This developed from the former colonial relationship of these countries to Britain, now independent each realm of the Commonwealth is legally distinct."

That article also states: "The present monarch is Queen Elizabeth II—officially titled Queen of Jamaica—who has reigned since 6 August 1962."

Meanwhile, the article "Monarchy of Canada" (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada) says this: "The Queen of Canada has been Elizabeth II since 6 February 1952."

Finally, check out this statement from "Monarchy of Tuvalu" (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Monarchy_of_Tuvalu#History): "Tuvalu achieved full independence in 1978 within the Commonwealth, as an independent constitutional monarchy. The monarch is equally shared with Britain and the other Commonwealth realms."

Wikipedia itself proves the distinction. Hobbitron38 (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

That statement "reigned since 6 August 1962." is not reflected at all in the source after it, so it appears that statement is again the interpretation of a Wikipedian, rather than an actual fact.

So I maintain, no official sources state that any country refers to Elizabeth's reign as beginning when the country became independent. Nothing you have provided, not the Statute of Westminster, nor Wikipedia sources show this.

So I don't think the distinction has been proven at all. El Dubs (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT, would support showing only the United Kingdom, with a footnote for the other realms. GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It depends on the context in which you're speaking. If determining countries she's queen of, definitely, but I was speaking in context of interpretation of the word "reign". El Dubs (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The main point remains the format is year a state entered or left goes in the States column, and is not the years the person was a reigning monarch. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I think I know what version is being talked about here. But I want to be sure what we're talking about and I don't see a link to demonsrate whats actally being proposed. GoodDay, could you insert a link here so myself and other can see what you're talking about? Thank you. Ttutcha (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The version Elfast implemented on 20:25 July 8, 2022. I don't know how to link to it. As Skyring/Pete says below - Why make it complicated, when it doesn't have to be. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey @GoodDay:, do you mean this one? Revision as of 20:25, 8 July 2022 by Elfast. Check out this edit to see how it's linked. El Dubs (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Bit worried about how these RfCs are going. both RfCs have offered one example for the "change" option. Which I imagine is what has resulted in subsequent RfCs. It's clear from the previous RfC that the consensus is Monarch's are listed once. Now how states should appear is the contentious issue, but instead of making the RfC about how to generally define the rules of how states should be listed, this RfC focuses purely on providing one option for Elizabeth II. This could very well lead to a series of RfC of different people offering their options for Elizabeth. If there is to be further discussion after this, can it please be about some general rules on the relationship between states and the Monarch listed. Not offering just one option that is the preference of the person starting the discussion, but a discussion of options first, then an RfC looking for a vote on areas of disagreement. El Dubs (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Huh. Just say United Kingdom and link to Elizabeth II for the details. We don't have to put the entire history of decolonisation into one cell of one table. Apart from places where she ceased to reign, such as Pakistan, she has always reigned over these places that later became realms. The monarch's head was on the coins and stamps regardless of what the local constitutional arrangements were. Did Queen Anne have two separate reigns because her title changed with the Act of Union and she ceased to be Queen of England and became Queen of the United Kingdom? Anyone who wants all the picayune details can go look for them in other areas of our wonderful information resource. --Pete (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Tuvalu. Papua New Guinea. They've already been pointed out in the discussion above; did you read it? As I know you know, Elizabeth doesn't reign as Queen of the UK in 14 countries, presently. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh jeez. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking to get reported already? That was quick. Please refrain from personal commentary, yadda, yadda. You well know the drill by now. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You're jumping to conclusions, as I'm quite acceptable to either of the three versions (UK+14), (15) or (4), on this particular page. GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The "oh, jeez" was an expression of exasperation so very obviously directed at me and you know it. Anyway, this is already more than I wanted to interact with you. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

We'll avoid interacting with each other in this RFC, any further. GoodDay (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Well Elfast & Skyring, your version is the best. But if it's not adopted? Peter Ormond's is certainly second on the list, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal:, thanks for posting in the 'survey'. We need as much input from editors, as possible. This page needs stability, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per above points. QE2 isn't only monarch of the UK, she's monarch of all the realms equally, and there isn't a single one of them for which she didn't become monarch in 1952.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

You already stated your 'oppose' in the survey, so you don't need to bold it here. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this a separate discussion from the above one? I'm completely confused at this point!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru: It's a sub-section of this RFC's discussion. Just pointing out, you don't need to place "Oppose" or "Support", if you've already done so in the 'survey' section. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Another proposal

I dunno... I'm just throwing it out here; but, what about this; or something like it? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Can we more generalise it? Instead of "As Queen of UK" and "As queen of independent nation", can it be "Accession of Monarch" and "As Monarch of Sovereign State"? El Dubs (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Since Elizabeth reigned over Papua New Guinea as Queen of Australia, not as Queen of the UK, a distinction has to be made. But, it certainly could be "As monarch of UK"/"As monarch of Australia" and "As monarch of sovereign state". Using "Queen" does communicate that she reigns/reigned as a queen and not as, say, an empress. I'm not sure that really matters, though. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I think your suggestion adds unnecessary information to the table. Detailing the capacity in which she was sovereign (Queen of the UK/Australia) doesn't help clarify her position in the table.

Instead, I would just suggest a clarification above the table. That it lists the date someone became a Monarch, and the date they stopped being a Monarch (or incumbent).

The state column should have nothing to do with the reign period, it is simply listing the sovereign states that the Monarch has been head of during the period they have been a Monarch. El Dubs (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, we do have to factor in the dispute here between those who believe the list shows how long individuals have reigned as monarchs and those who believe the list shows how long monarchs have reigned, and a monarch's reign is tied to the sovereignty of the country over which they have reigned. I believe my layout displays the information both ways: How long Elizabeth Windsor has reigned as a queen over all her territories, whether sovereign or not, and how long Elizabeth II has reigned as queen of each sovereign state. Would your method not require all 34 (I think) of Elizabeth II's sovereign realms, current and former, to be included? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe it is appropriate to focus on the individual, not the role. The table does not separately list the Queen of the UK, the Queen of NZ, the Queen of Aus, and the Queen of Canada, and the Queen of Jamaica. It lists Elizabeth II, the individual, not the role, or else she would be positions 2-5, and further down another for Jamaica, something the previous RfC showed consensus against. So I would absolutely support a method that focused on the individual as a Monarch.

In regards to my method showing all 34(-ish) states, that's answered by the paragraph above the first table that clarifies the criteria "states that were internationally recognised as sovereign for most or all of their reign." (emphasis mine). Since a lot of those states don't meet the criteria "sovereign for most of her reign", they wouldn't be included.

Only the states already present, with the addition of Barbados, would be included. El Dubs (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I get your view on this. What I'm saying is there are others who see it differently; that it's incorrect to show Elizabeth II as having reigned over the country of Jamaica for 70 years when Jamaica didn't exist as a country until 60 years ago; before that, it was a territory of the UK, with a different flag and everything. I was trying to satisfy both sides; something of a compromise, since these disputes aren't supposed to be resolved by vote. If you don't like it, that's fine.

According to the criteria you reference there, countries like Barbados would be included, since Elizabeth II reigned over it, either as Queen of the UK or as Queen of Barbados, for "most of her reign", even though she's now no longer its head of state. Where's the line between most and only a little bit? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I do understand others see it differently, I'm just fully fleshing out my view so I'm satisfied that view can be fully understood by others.

Agreed, as I mentioned, Barbados should be included because they were sovereign for most of her reign. Where's the line? I believe "most" people would agree "more than half" is an agreeable and the simplest definition for 'most'. El Dubs (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

What we've got right now, is confusing enough. Going with a (for the moment) 35+ year criteria, would make things worst. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The previous RFC that voted on the current state enjoyed strong consensus. This RFC is quite split, so I don't agree that it's generally agreed the current state is confusing. Nor do I think people would agree dividing by two to determine more than half (or most) would be particularly confusing. But I am also fine with including all 30+ sovereign states. El Dubs (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It would appear as though Amakuru's version, will remain. Though we're still awaiting an official closure. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

How many more RFCs?

Most likely, the RFC result will be to include all the current realms. Then again, maybe all 32 realms. I wonder, how many RFC will be required? GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This page needs discussion, it is clear that neither the previous version, nor the current version is working for people, and it doesn't appear there will be support for the new version now proposed.

This needs discussion, not constant votes until people give up. Wikipedia is not a democracy, votes are only intended when discussion cannot result in consensus. We should be discussing what doesn't work, what is confusing, and bring the discussion down to ideally one option, or at most two. Only if we cannot reach one should we go to vote.

It also needs involved editors to be willing to come to the table and actually discuss and be willing to accept their perferred version isn't "fine the way it is". It's clearly not if enough people are finding confusion or error in it. El Dubs (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your point here about reaching consensus. The current version that lists the current Commonwealth realms is definitely confusing. A version from a few days ago seemed workable to me, even though it wasn't my preference. That version correctly listed the UK, CA, AUS, and NZ as the four nations where Elizabeth has reigned since 1952, but also included a note that mentioned all of the other countries where she reigns today or reigned in the past. I thought that was a balanced solution. The list was accurate at face value, and all of the information was there. Hobbitron38 (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Something when you think about it. This entire discussion (both RFCs) all began when someone objected to Liz being listed twice. Originally, we had her listed as "2nd" (UK/CAN/AUS/NZ) & "14th" (JAM). GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the entire discussion stemmed from that. If you had simply agreed to the removal of the ranking from Jamaica and leave it as an "unranked" entry between 14th and 15th (the solution I eventually favoured, and which someone had already boldly implemented) then none of the subsequent changes would have been necessary. But we are where we are, Option B has been stable for quite a while now, and it doesn't seem like further changes to the current status quo are necessary.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it'll ever be stable. In the meantime, we should consider adding a FAQ to this page, once this RFC closes with (hopefully) a consensus for some version of option B. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

We're all debating how to interpret the intent of the table, when we should just discuss what the criteria of the table should be.

A discussion, and maybe a vote on "How can we change the paragraph above the table to create a clear and understandable criteria for inclusion in the list?"

I'd suggest as a first draft: "Longest-reigning monarchs of sovereign states, listing states that have been sovereign at any point during the Monarch's time on the throne."

(It's not perfect, I'd want input on better ways to word that.)

Now, we may disagree on whether that should say that or "listing states that were sovereign at accession.", but the point is, once we've had that RFC and decided on the criteria, there's no longer any room for interpretation and edit wars, beyond questions of how it should be styled. El Dubs (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, if all 15 realms are going to be shown. They should be in order of the realms' age, rather then in alphabetical order. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Forgive my pedantism, I'd order it based on which states became sovereign earliest. It would result in the same order as your suggestion, but with I think a more useful basis. The reason is this is how states are listed for other multi-state Monarchs. Chronologically. El Dubs (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove all countries & flags

Maybe the solution is to delete the countries/flags entirely from the page. It would remove the area of contention. The monarch bios are linked, so folks can see what country or countries they reign over. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

If I can, it doesn't seem like a good solution. It is radical but perhaps "worse than the disease". It deletes information that is important to the purpose of the page and it is certainly uncomfortable to have to open all biographies to get the information yourself. In addition, nations should then also be removed from the 2nd and 3rd list, where not all monarchs have a bio.Sira Aspera (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Yikes, my suggestion has backfired. Flags have been added to the non-sovereign state monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

UK/CAN/AUS/NZ vs all the current realms

So, it's apparently come down to @Peter Ormond:'s proposal vs @Amakuru:'s proposal. I don't envy the closing editor's task. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Notifications to previous RFC participants

@Richard75:, @Mrodowicz:, @2204happy:, @Jackal Himorse:, @Vladimir.copic:, @P1221:, @Elfast:, @Amakuru:, @Aridd:, @67.173.23.66:, @Ttutcha:, @Visviva:, @Chrs:, @Supertrinko:, @PamD:, @Skyring: - You ought to know about the 'new' RFC, in case this page isn't on your watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Closure

I've put in a request for closure. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Good choice for this one, the vote is well divided. El Dubs (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chan Imix Kʼawiil

Should he be here or not? 103.137.24.11 (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Longest-reigning monarch without regency

In light of one user’s edit warring to remove Elizabeth from the lead, I’d like to seek consensus on this point (since several other editors have reverted this user’s changes, there already seems to be an emerging consensus, but I’d like to get a firmer one). This page is dedicated to longest-ruling monarchs in general. There is a separate page dedicated to longest reigns for living monarchs. As opposed to the rule of a living monarch, I think that a much more important metric is longest-reigning monarch without a regency.

Since Louis XIV was a child for eight years of his rule, this would fall to Elizabeth II, whose rule as full monarch for 70 years without regency is a considerable achievement and much more relevant to the topic of this page than a 55 year rule from a currently reigning monarch. Longest-reigning current monarch should remain on the separate page dedicated to this topic. Thoughts? —Drevolt (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Liz is the right person for the lede, but because she was a woman non because her reign didn't include a regency. It's pretty common to include the "top man" and "top woman" in lists like these. The regency is less notable, in my opinion. Corndog234 (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This is not a personal Louis XIV page. Nor a Queen Elizabeth page. Any reassessment (displaying or adding or subtracting regency period) or inserting any other new criteria in the table would have to be implemented for all the relevant monarchs in the table. —Loginnigol 19:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Loginnigol me agree, it's kinda stupid to bend rules for just one ruler because you want to see them remain displayed there

if anything has to be changed for one monarch, then it should be changed for every monarch Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Drevolt a semi-half-sorta-kinda-regency since 2018 when she started delegating some of her tasks such as inaugurational and ceremonial tasks

but well, it's the queen of England, a constitutional monarchy, she doesn't have that much powers when compared to an absolute monarch so idk; the English people fought for this kind of monarchy Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Esteban Outeiral Dias: Even if we were to count those four years as something like a regency, Elizabeth II’s non-regency rule would still be longer than Louis XIV’s non-regency rule by two years. Drevolt (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Drevolt I'm well aware all I'm saying is that she didn't fully fully returned without it 100% sorta Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree, a child of age 5-13 doesn't rule by any means. His mother, a regent, and her entourage ruled at that period, therefore these years should not be considered and thus the Queen Elizabeth II should be on top of the table. Regardless of her gender, she served on her own as the Queen for more than 70 years, and it's the maximum so far — that's why she should lead the list. 2A02:810D:1380:3743:527:37E2:E1BB:162D (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We're not going to revive that old debate. Louis XIV reigned from age five. He held true nearly unlimited power when the regency ended when he was 13, while Elizabeth II was a figurehead all her life.--Aréat (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles, count of Eu

I don't see why Charles of Eu appears on the second list. I don't see any evidence that Eu was anything more than a county in the kingdom of France, or that it had more independence than any other French county or dukedom at the time. It shouldn't count as the sovereign of a dependent state, unless we include in that list every single lordship that has existed in Europe or equivalent elsewhere. 79.95.87.238 (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The first list is for those who are "Sovereign" not the Second. Jackal Himorse (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II should be shown as the longest reigning female

I believe She should still be shown at the top of the page as she was the longest reigning female. She had an extraordinary reign and deserves the recognition of being at the top of the list in my humble opinion 2603:7080:4D00:3465:E0FB:1BFD:C3D:E58C (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion! I think that a much more important metric is longest-reigning monarch without a regency, since Louis XIV was a child for eight years of his rule. Several other editors seem to agree with this, so I’m going to seek consensus on this point. —Drevolt (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Louis XIV was an absolute monarch for most of his reign and played a key role in turning France into the largest power on the European continent. Queen Elizabeth was a political figurehead, if we're going to count a regency against Louis then we ought to not even count Elizabeth as a monarch. The page showed her at the top because she was the longest-reigning living monarch and ofc a contender to become the longest-reigning sovereign. Changing how the page displays just to continue displaying her image at the top is pure bias, and to bring Louis having a regency into it to delegitimize several years of his rule to justify it is nothing more than a red herring. JSUMN (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep Louis XIV & Elizabeth II, at the top of the page. GoodDay (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn’t that be kept reserved for the current longest-reigning monarch, which would be the Sultan of Brunei. I’m pretty sure if the current ruler was from some European country, he would be on here by now and not some small Southeast Asian country. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Brunei was apparently a British Protectorate until 1 January 1984 So one could argue Hassanal Bolkiah belongs on the Second List but if it is decided to place him on the First List he will join in 2023 (About a year and 1 Month) followed by Margrethe II of Denmark in 2028 and Carl XVI Gustaf in 2030 Jackal Himorse (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, Brunei didn't gain independence until the 1980's. GoodDay (talk) 08:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, more of his reign was while his country was independent than not, so I don't know if that's a factor in determining which list he fits in. 24.15.214.201 (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Then should Margrethe II replace Elizabeth’s photo alongside Louis XIV? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

No, as She will not be here until at least Early 2028. Jackal Himorse (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but is that not an anti-recency bias? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Why would we replace Elizabeth II with Margrethe II? The Danish monarch has another roughly 20 years to go, before she surpasses her third cousin. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

What about if I add an image of Marguerite II below those first two? That way, we'll all be happy? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 05:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

No, Louis XIV & Elizabeth II is enough. GoodDay (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll wait for others to chip in if that's alright. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The clear consensus on this seems to be that Elizabeth, god rest her soul, did not meet the metric required to be photographed in parity alongside Louis. That would require some sort of parity, which Elizabeth II never achieved. As hard as it may be for GoodDay to accept, Louis remains the longest reigning monarch. As difficult as it may be for GoodDay to accept that his beloved Queen will always be subordinate to Louis, Wiki does not exist to indulge the fantasies of Brits. I agree with the consensus here that Louis be recognised as the lone and longest reigning monarch. If Brits wish to suggest some lesser and SUBORDINATE position for Elizabeth, that is entirely acceptable. Placing her alongside the longest reigning monarch, just to stop them crying, does not meet the truth test. Anti truth fanatics such as GoodDay are understandably in a time of deep mourning, but that is entirely antithetical to the mission statement of Wiki to provide unbiased truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.42.189 (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Lol, I would just personally say that you shouldn't pretend that the Queen lives forever on a Wiki page, for gods sake. Let's move on with the times and respect the current-reigning ruler as if they haven't already reigned long enough. This list is going to feel like a cemetery without having a living individual be represented on here anyways and there's already enough of an Anglo-centric bias on Wikipedia. Who else says anything about having to get onto a top 25, or wait 8 years to get on a damn picture? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The only reason I'm saying stick with Louis XIV & Elizabeth II, is because they're the longest reigned male & female monarchs. Now, if this list included only currently reigning monarchs of sovereign states? Then I'd have Margrethe II & Carl XVI Gustaf, as the two images. GoodDay (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Well I'm trying to compromise with you here (you get Louis and I get Marguerite, who also happens to be a female ruler). I'm even more willing to just add a third photo. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

How's it a compromise, when Margrethe II need another 20 years to pass Elizabeth II? GoodDay (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

My mindset is that it should be reserved for the current longest-reigning ruler, not a dead one, even one as influential as Elizabeth was. It's a compromise, but let others discuss too, not just you and me. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

You're missing the point. This article isn't limited to living monarchs. Anyways, the IP is just gonna keep edit-warring, so that Louis XIV remains the 'sole' top image. GoodDay (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Just my opinion. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I would agree with the inclusion of EII. The longest-lived king and the longest-lived queen seems to me a fair deal. Especially because, while in fact L.XIV would be surpassed by several rulers of the third list if we had more precise records, Elizabeth is currently the longest-lived queen of all for what is our current knowledge. Sira Aspera (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Not really Arwa al-Sulayhi of Yemen reigned for 71 Years between Early 1067 and 5 May 1138, A couple of Months longer then Elizabeth II did. Jackal Himorse (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

But was Yemen a sovereign state, his entire reign? GoodDay (talk) 07:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sulayhid_dynasty Says it was a confederation under the Fatamids. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction : Arwa al-Sulayhi was a Woman

And yes Yemen was fully Sovereign as she does not appear to be any Puppet, Vassal or Other things that a Non–Sovereign Monarchs has Seems like a Fully Sovereign State to me. Edit : It was a Confederation under the Fatimids so NVM. Jackal Himorse (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't add it to the top list. GoodDay (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that Queen Elizabeth made quite a lot of contributions worldwide and that she stabilized the monarchy through times of trouble and the she should be listed at the top as the longest reigning female. No I am not a Brit, I’m from the US SuzyQ621 (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I think Elizabeth II should stay at the top as the longest reigning female monarch in history because that’s pretty significant, especially considering how many royal systems are rigged against female rulers (just look at Japan for example where women can’t rule for any reason at all). I’m not really sure why she’s been removed. Sparx632 (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Also this page really needs to be Protected given how Often it is getting Vandalized by IPS I recently reverted one IP who vandalized to make Elizabeth II First. Jackal Himorse (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Longest Reigning Monarch - Minhti

Should link to ‘Min Hti’ who has his own article 66.181.189.94 (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

QEII of Barbados

Not to create further problems with QE II, but if it was decided to include her as the queen of all her current kingdoms, how does she rank on this list as Queen of Barbados? Barbados only became a Republic in 2021, so the queen's reign is still long enough to stay here as a separate kingdom, unlike her reigns as Queen of Pakistan, Queen of Kenya ... Sira Aspera (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I reckon we ain't gonna know the results, until the current RFC ends. Interesting though, there are other pages similar to this one, but this is the only one to have had such a difficult time with this topic. IMHO, the solution would be to simply delete the country entries & go with just listing the monarchs, but nobody's going for it. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Probably because QEII is a unique case, as it has so many realms with different durations and in addition there is the duality between the durations of the de facto realms and the legal ones for practically all the former colonies.Sira Aspera (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I had included Barbados on a previous edit, but this resulted in a tirade of further edits that broke away from the intention of the previous RFC.

So while I do think Barbados will need inclusion, I think we have to have this RFC, and further discussions about getting the page into a state that everyone is satisfied with, then we can move forward with actual improvement and progress. El Dubs (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I specify that even if I have my own opinion on the subject, neither this point nor the description of the other kingdoms are my hill to die on, but since there is discussion, we might as well resolve everything together. Sira Aspera (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sira Aspera I'm late to comment on this and I'm not sure there is still an RFC, but I hope there is. The article as currently written is inaccurate because it states that Elizabeth II has reigned in 15 countries since 6 February 1952. Only four of the 15 countries listed were actually nations with distinct monarchies on that day. Her reign has only been 70 years long in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK. I agree with you that Barbados would have to score a mention if other countries like Jamaica are part of the list, but really they shouldn't be. Hobbitron38 (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hobbitron38 Yes, I have seen that there is an ongoing dispute over whether QEII reigns should be calculated on a legal basis, i.e. by the independence of each country, or on a factual basis, as sovereign of the territory rather than the legal status. This is not really a RdC, but I wanted to emphasize that if you decide for the current option, for accuracy, vulgate or inclusion; then Barbados must be inserted separately for the same reasons.Sira Aspera (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I've been visiting this Wikipedia page on the semi-regular for years just to watch Elizabeth move up the leaderboard. I guess I haven't been here frequently enough to catch the RFC in time but most of the activity on the page is likely to be when she was about to or had recently surpassed another entry. I think this whole change has made this page far less useful than it was before. The point of Wikipedia is to provide information and the end result removed information and context. The reason to treat Elizabeth differently from the other monarchs on the list is that at the moment her entries are the only ones changing. For those of us who check in, seeing how the length of her reigns in various countries compared to others was the whole point. The length of her reign in countries where she hasn't been the monarch for 70 years was the part that was interesting. If Jamaica decided to become a republic will it just be deleted from her entry or will she have a former monarch entry for it? Mrplastic (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the solution should be to just have the 4 that were independent in 1952 in the table, plus a footnote listing all her other kinds of reign (and perhaps also mentioning her term as Head of the Commonwealth), or at least linking to such a list or footnote elsewhere (or perhaps just indicating when a country in the list became sovereign if that was after 1952). A separate footnote giving the date (and also in how many days' time?) that she is scheduled to overtake Louis XIV (if she is still on the throne) would probably also be useful for some of our readers (if she does overtake him the footnote can then be modified to say this was when she topped the list, and how long she has been on top of the list); such a footnote might perhaps also explain why they both had reigned for the same number of years and days on the relevant date (basically because or2000 was a leap year and 1700 wasn't). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I might add the RFC non-result is irrelevant, and getting rid of the factual errors is not really some sort of mere option for discussion. We do not keep factual errors uncorrected in Wikipedia even as the result of RFCs being in favour of keeping them, let alone as a result of an RFC that reached no consensus. If deleting the erroneous/misleading countries in one go is deemed too drastic (and I currently think it probably is), then somebody can put a cn (citation needed) beside each of them, preferably along with an explanation in each cn's reason parameter, and then let the process for cns take its course. Going through the cn process is arguably not strictly necessary when the text is known to be erroneous/misleading, but the cn and its reason parameter can actually be a useful way of explaining the problem to confused readers and editors, and can be a useful temporary fix, while awaiting the creation of a better solution such as putting her other reigns in a footnote, or listing the start date of her reign in the disputed country, or whatever). I may eventually do this myself, except that I'm not yet sure that I want to get involved (per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO), and perhaps also because if I were to get involved I might feel a more urgent problem was what to do about all those entries 'supported' by the 3 red-inked non-citations (or citations that clearly fail to satisfy WP:RS, such as the one for Werner, which is not merely a blog, but one that starts off by telling us as fact that the longest reign was by some guy whom it states died aged 136, yet which also appears to be the 'support' for the 56 entries that cite the non-existent "werner etc" red-inked citation refname). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

After further thought I've added a clarification request beside QE2's listed countries that were not sovereign in 1952, along with a reason parameter explaining this. That way our readers are less likely to be misled while a better solution is sought. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I've now replaced the first clarification request with ' (sovereign since 1 November 1981)'.That way our readers won't be misled. I may or may not add the others later, if no other editor has done so in the meantime. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I've now replaced that first explanatory text with an explanatory footnote, as this is more flexible. Further footnotes for each country should allow subtleties, and if necessary citations, for that country to be included that wouldn't easily fit as text in the table.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I've now replaced the remaining clarification requests with footnotes (currently identical except for the first, but I'm assuming others will eventually add in relevant country-specific details); I've also specified explicitly the 4 countries to which length of reign applies in the footnote that was already beside length of reign. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This is an ideal solution. It still includes countries that have been sovereign during her reign, and also clarifies for anyone that may think this implies those countries were sovereign at the beginning of her reign. Thanks for making that change! El Dubs (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, El Dubs. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

But it's perhaps not yet 100% ideal, as we might (or might not?) well eventually want to add a footnote with, or link to, a list of countries where her reign ended at or after independence,with relevant dates, etc, as at least one editor (other than me) has seemingly said somewhere around here (I forget precisely where) that they would like this (and there's seemingly also the possibly different editor who wants a mention of Barbados somewhere). But that's all time-consuming, and seemingly much lower priority than deciding what to do about the unreliably-sourced entries, so it can presumably wait.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks great and provides all the relevant information. Thank you. Mrplastic (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Would need to include the 'year', the 11 realms became independent. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and sometimes possibly quite a lot more, which is why I originally wrote above "I'm assuming others will eventually add in relevant country-specific details". However, I'll probably now try to make a start on the independence dates, even though it's not actually what most needs fixing in this article (the entries backed by non-existent or unreliable citations are the biggest problem, but fixing that may not be as easy as adding about 10 independence dates). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

11 independence dates, of course. GoodDay (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Dates now all added (1st date already added 1 or 2 days ago, 2 to 11 added just now). I will leave it to others to add to the footnotes other relevant country-specific details, if any, if they are deemed desirable. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The RFC (closed last month) results were to list only the realms that existed, at the end of her reign. Are we going to have to open up another RFC (now that she's passed), as to whether or not to include the 17 realms that became republics, during her reign? GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Daimyo

Several rulers of Japanese domains are listed in the second list. It seems that a Daimyo was more akin to a feudal lord than a constituent monarch, so should they be counted? 24.15.214.201 (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

No. We should only be counting sovereigns. Richard75 (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The first list is for Sovereign monarchs not the Second. And either way to me Damiyo are as much of Monarchs as the Zamindars or Jagirs of the British Raj (Udai Pratap Nath Shah Deo for instance), or 'Low Title' HRE rulers like Henry Frederick of Hohenlohe-Langenburg Or the Salm-Reifferscheid-Dyck rulers. Jackal Himorse (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Notes regarding regency

Should there be notes (and associated dates) next to all monarchs who had been proclaimed as such below the age of majority, and as such had a regent rule in their stead? This would adjust the time of effective rule, as although technically in the position, they did not hold power. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 20:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Should there be notes next to all monarchs with the amount of powers they held. Elizabeth II had practically no power, should she even be in the list?

I think opening the can of who held the most power is silly. This is not a list of the most powerful monarch, but who was monarch the longest. 2001:861:3400:B560:1CB4:489:8F8A:6AF9 (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

It would just add unnecessary clutter to the list. It's quite a busy list already. Richard75 (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree, unnecessary clutter and an arbitrary distinction. Eccekevin (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

No notes for regencies. We're interested in their reigns. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Just me but the First list seems a Bit too short.

I feel like 25 is small compared to 100 People on the Second List. I feel like it should be expanded to 30 so it gets more Better and Longer and hence more Interesting to read. 103.137.24.9 (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's leave it at 25, as it has been for quite some time. GoodDay (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Would you mind expanding on why it should remain 25? I think it'd help discussion. Status quo for its own sake is not a good argument. El Dubs (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Because, if you keep expanding it, then where will you draw the line? GoodDay (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Expanding doesn't necessarily mean that we have to keep expanding. That's called a slippery slope fallacy. We do what we always do, we draw the line based on consensus, based on what the community believes it should be. You yourself gave an example of 50, I'd completely agree with that number, and it doesn't necessarily mean we'll eventually have to move to top 100.

We shouldn't avoid change because of fear that it might lead to a slippery slope, but decide as we go on what we want for the page, and not prevent improvement (if it is indeed improvement). El Dubs (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with expanding it. It's significantly shorter than the others, and well sourced additional entries would be an improvement. El Dubs (talk) 06:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Best to leave it as is. But, if you're gonna make changes? Make the first & second lists each a top 50. GoodDay (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The longer the list, the more monarchs there are to argue about. Look how many debates we have already. 25 is plenty, and I can't imagine that anyone is coming to this article because they want to find out who had the 26th-longest reign. Richard75 (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the second list previously had a limit of 85, but it was recently extended to 100, though there doesn't seem to have been any talk page discussion over expanding it. 2601:241:300:B610:7517:234B:5B15:378A (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)