Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Previously unsectioned comments

I am not sure that Tenzin Gyatso should be on this list. Since he is in charge of a government in exile he doesn't really reign. In monarchical terms he is a deposed monarch. --Mishalak 17:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And looking into it further I have found the page on Malietoa Tanumafili II of Samoa seems to indicate that he is not a monarch, but rather a president for life. I'm not changing anything, yet, but this needs a great deal more research. Additionally the page on Sobhuza II has a reign of 60+ years, from the end of the regency to his death in 1982. Further was he treated by a monarch prior to independence in 1968? And if so from what time? Again, not going to change anything without some serious research first. --Mishalak 20:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think, there is a country by name India, which was full of kingdoms. We cam find a large number of monarchs ruling long periods...I remember a few from memory...Ganapati Deva of the Kakatiyas(1198-1262), 63 years and one Gayakwad ruler Maharaja Sayaji Rao Gaikwad III (1875-1939) for around 64, One Wodeyar of Mysore Krishnaraja Wodeyar III (1799–1868) for 69 and so on...As declared this is my list of 20 ancient rulers in India who deserve entry in the list: 1. Narayanapala (855 - 908) 53 Pala 2. Mahipala (988 - 1038) 50 "" 3. Ramapala (1077 - 1130) 53 "" 4. Ganapati Deva of the Kakatiyas(1198-1262), 63 years 5. Veera Ballala III (1292 – 1343) of Hoyasalas 6. Vikramaditya VI (1076 - 1126) of Chalukyas 7. Kochadaiyan Ranadhiran 675 - 730 Pandyan 8. Amoghavarsha I (814 - 878) Rashtrakuta 9. Satakarni (c.180-124 BCE) Satavahana 10. Vijay Sen (1096-1159 AD) Sena dynasty of Bengal 11. MULRAJ (942-996) Solanki 12. BHIMDEV II(1178-1241) "" 13. "Siddhraj" Jaysinh I (1093-1143) "" 14. Bimbisara [545 B.C. or 543-493 B.C.] Haryanka 15. Mahendravarman I (571 – 630 CE) Pallava 16. Avinita (469 - 529) Western Ganga 17. Durvinita (529 - 579) "" 18. Sripurusha (726 - 788) "" 19. Raja RATAN SEN 1371/1427 Bhadauriya Rajputs 20. Mihira Bhoja I (835-890) Pratihara Note that this list is compiled from Wikipedia, even it is considered a bit incompetent over India, no offence meant. and obviously, the world is not a small place... Aptly said, why aren't the Dalai Lamas incorporated into the list?

So, it's better to take out this article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.137.97 (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, all of the monarchs which you have suggested should be included on this list. What you seem to be missing is the fact that this page is edited and updated by volunteers such as yourself, and if there were a perfect list then we would take the information from there. In short, rather than pointing out what is missing, you should be contributing it yourself if you've realised it's not there. Burbridge92 (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone earlier wrote in: Add.(Sundem State India)Sawai Basavalinga (1763-1843) 80 years, so I'm putting it here as it's reasonably close to the other suggestions... Br.locke (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC) |- Add. Raja Sawai Basavalinga I |Sundem| (India) 1763-1843 80 years |} Raja Bishan Chandra Jenamani |Rairakhol (India) 1825-1900 75 years Why is somebody adding suggestions on the main page and not here??? This is tiresome. Br.locke (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Add.Bahagwatsinhji Maharaja of Gondal (India) 1869|12|14 1944|03|10 74 years and 87 days Br.locke (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Distinction between verified fact and legend

There needs to be a clear indication which lifespans are actually verified by historians and official records (e.g. Queen Victoria) and which are disputed (e.g. Taejo who supposedly died aged 118/9). And if there is doubt, how serious? Is it only a minority opinion among historians to dispute the claimed age or is the long reign widely seen as a myth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.123.199 (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Claims which are disputed and claims which are incomplete should be separated from those which are actually known for the sake of accuracy. Reigns such as the reign of Taejo are not actually known or verifiable so he can only be given his place in the list based on speculation, not knowledge.Burbridge92 (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing

Numerous European rulers, and particularly German princes, are missing from this list:

  1. 77 years - Heinrich XI, Prince of Reuss Elder Line: Became Count of Reuss-Obergreiz at the age of 1 in 1723. Inherited Reuss-Untergreiz in 1768, creating the territory of "Reuss Elder Line", took the title of prince in 1778.
  2. 73 years - Karl Friedrich, Grand Duke of Baden: He became Margrave of Baden-Durlach in 1738, inherited Baden-Baden in 1771, took the title of Elector in 1803 and of Grand Duke in 1806, and died in 1811.
  3. 73 years - Georg Wilhelm, Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe: Became Count of Schaumbrg-Lippe 1787, and Prince 1807, and died 1860. Even if his time as count is not counted, he reigned as sovereign prince for 53 years.
  4. 70 years - Karl August, Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach: Became Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach 1758, Grand Duke 1815, died 1828.
  5. 69 years - Friedrich V, Landgrave of Hesse-Homburg: Reigned 1751-1820
  6. 66 years - Karl Theodor, Elector of Bavaria: He became Count Palatine of Sulzbach in 1733, and ruled that territory until his death in 1799. He also ruled over Jülich, Berg, and the Palatinate for over 50 years, from 1742 until his death. (He only ruled over Bavaria itself for 22 years)
  7. 66 years - Leopold III, Duke of Anhalt-Dessau: He became Prince of Anhalt-Dessau in 1751, upgraded his title to Duke in 1807, and died in 1817.
  8. 66 years - Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies: Reigned over Sicily continuously from 1759 to 1825. (His rule in Naples was twice interrupted, however)
  9. 64 years - Albrecht Anton, Count of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt: Regiedn 1646-1710
  10. 64 years - Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince of Hohenzollern-Hechingen: Reigned 1671-1735
  11. 64 years - Frederick Augustus I of Saxony: Elector of Saxony 1763-1806, King 1806-1827.
  12. 63 years - Bernhard II, Duke of Saxe-Meiningen: Reigned 1803-1866
  13. 62 years - Viktor Amadeus, Prince of Anhalt-Bernburg: Reigned 1656-1718
  14. 61 years - Ernst Ludwig, Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt: Reigned 1678-1739
  15. 60 years - Karl, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel: Reigned 1670-1730
  16. 60 years - Friedrich Günther, Prince of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt: Reigned 1807-1867
  17. 57 years - Karl, Prince of Nassau-Usingen: Reigned 1718-1775
  18. 56 years - Karl Eugen, Duke of Württemberg: Reigned 1737-1793
  19. 55 years - Ernst I, Duke of Saxe-Altenburg: Regiend 1853-1908
  20. 54 years - Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria: Reigned 1597-1651
  21. 54 years - Leopold I, Prince of Anhalt-Dessau: Reigned 1693-1747
  22. 54 years - Joseph Friedrich, Prince of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen: Reigned 1715-1769
  23. 54 years - Leopold IV, Duke of Anhalt: He became Duke of Anhalt-Dessau in 1817, Duke of Anhalt-Dessau-Köthen in 1853, and Duke of Anhalt in 1863, and died in 1871.
  24. 53 years - Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany: Ruled 1670-1723
  25. 53 years - Wilhelm, Duke of Brunswick: Ruled 1831-1884
  26. 52 years - Friedrich Franz I, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin: Duke 1785, Grand Duke 1815, died 1837.
  27. 52 years - Haakon VII of Norway: Reigned 1905-1957
  28. 51 years - Friedrich I, Grand Duke of Baden: Reigned 1856-1907

This list arises from a very cursory examination. I'm sure there's tons more I've missed. In short, this list is shit. john k 00:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats one way of saying it. Another way is to actual add something instead of pointing out what is missing. If everybody had perfect lists from the beginning we would not really need wiki, right?. So add away Twthmoses 15:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the list contains a manual ordination of lengths, and thus implies a completeness it will never have. I could add these guys, but the list would still be shit, because I didn't do more than barely check through some lists for long reigning monarchs. There are hundreds of states of t he Holy Roman Empire, hundreds of Indian princely states (with which I am largely unfamiliar), various African traditional monarchies, and so forth. And every time someone wants to add something, the whole list will have to be renumbered manually. The whole design of the thing is not such as to favor improvement, and the task this list sets for itself is more or less impossible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Kenney (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

i agree, this list is shit and totally subjective and worthless. Currently the no. 1 reigning momarch has a completely unvarifiable and unconfirmable reign which some faggot has decided is the longest ever. Without varifiable proof this list is useless. And before some prat comes along and says "BUT LOOK! i wrote a essay on my blog about this person and how they person reigned for 3 million years and cos it was on my blog it is a totally independant source and therefore its true", i would say (in the least offensive tone) "fuck off you useless waste of blood and organs". Cheerio TSMonk 02:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This list of European monarchs is now fully incorporated into the list. br.locke 2010

Shapur II of Sassanids (309-379) is also missing.

Another one that should be added once the manual ordination of lengths has been removed: Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor is actually on the list as German King for the period of 1440-1493. However, he ruled in Inner Austria (Styria, Carinthia and Carniola) as Frederick V from 1424 to 1493 (69 years). Martg76 (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorting syntax

See Help:Sorting. Basically by using 

<span style="display:none">SortKey</span> DisplayText

before the information one wants to display in the table, it will then sort correctly.

  • For the first column, order number, the display:none trick is only needed for duplicates. There are several listed as 60 year reigns, so use display:none to keep them chronological order by beginning date, but have the display text show them at the same number.
  • For the start or end date columns, the display:none trick is needed for two instances, BC dates and 0AD to 999AD. For BC dates, use the ! trick, for 3 digit AD dates, add a leading zero.

Holler if you have any questions. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil (1831-1889: 58 years) has also dissapeared from the list

He's back! br.locke

What about the Pope

Why is the John Paul II or any other Pope listed. They are monarchs - Mr.NorCal55 (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

While popes are heads of state, they are not monarchs - as they are elected. Also, they are unlikely to make this list, as most are elected when they're older, instead of at a young age.
~ender 2008-05-17 2:21:AM MST
Popes are certainly monarchs. The Holy Roman Emperors and the Kings of Poland were also elected. At any rate, the longest reigning pope, Pius IX, only reigned for 32 years, so none would make the list. john k (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelmina

There seems to be an error with her date of abdication. Happy138 (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is fine now. br.locke

Byzantine Emperors

John II Komnenos Reigned from 1092 to 1143 (51 years)

And Basil 2 reigned from 960 to 1025 (65 years)69.61.215.152 (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

These statements are probably too definitive - usually, Basil II is taken to have reigned from 976, and John II from 1118, the dates when they became senior emperor, rather than the dates they were made co-ruler. But it probably is worth considering how to deal with such situations. There's also Constantine VIII (962-1028) and Andronikos II Palaiologos (1261-1328) in the same situation. Possibly more. john k (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Manual ordination, a.k.a. NUMBERING THE LIST

For God's sake. I suggested that manual ordination needed to be removed over two years ago. And yet, still there, making this list still useless and almost impossible to improve. God, wikipedia can be frustrating. john k (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So I got rid of the ordinals. I also added the "age in years and days" template where possible, and added some full dates where I could. The article is still problematic, though. john k (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that someone recently took the time to reintroduce the ordinals, but I think we moved past that a year ago - there were two main problems there: the most important being that these ordinals would have to be reassigned manually each time a new item was added to the list, and the list is continually growing. It is fine to move a single living monarch up in the ordinals by copy and paste, but to add a historic monarch in subsequently (especially toward the top of the list) presents an inordinate amount of work (pun intended). Furthermore, the ordinals as they were reintroduced didn't take into account any of those who are represented as "ties" - where several individuals appear to have equal-length reigns because we only know the year - and to number these progressively would be misleading. So I removed the ordinals, with apologies to the user who took the time to type them in. br.locke (talk) 8:42, 29 April 2010
PLEASE DO NOT ADD NUMBERS IN!!! READ THIS DISCUSSION FIRST!!! br.locke (talk) 7:49 12 May 2010

Cleomenes II

Cleomenes II of sparta ruled from 370-309 BCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.203.221 (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Brahmāthat

Brahmāthat is listed as starting his reign at 806 and ending at 856. The only problem is that the timeframe is BCE so the year for the end of his reign should be lower than the beginning. I couldn't find the correct dates. Perhaps this is merely a typo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.87.91 (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Highlighting Incumbents

On Wikipedia's lists of longest living people, those who are still alive (and as such are still adding to their total) are often highlighted. Is there any reason why that is not the case on this list for those who are still reigning? I would do it, but I'm not that wikipedia-savvy and I'm not entirely certain that it hasn't been done deliberately. LINK3 (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

God-kings of Antediluvian Egypt and Sumer [?]

I'm curious as to whether there ought to be a note saying that the legendary kings of remote antiquity are not listed on this article. (The god-kings, demigods, followers of Horus, etc.)

I mean, there is already a note saying such about the legendary emperors of Japan. Pine (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Manasseh of Judah

I'm not a major Wikipedia contributor, but perhaps someone else would be interested in doing the research and possibly editing the page. According to Kings, Menashe ben Chezkia (Mannaseh, son of Hezekia) was king of Judah for 55 years. Does his name deserve mention on the list?

70.23.111.29 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Nachy Wolfe

eastern zhou lords

Do they really count as monarchs? Kayau Voting IS evil 15:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Kaga daimyo?

As interesting as I find it that Maeda Tsunanori ruled Kaga for so long - and I do; I genuinely find these kinds of historical trivia about daimyo fascinating - I really wouldn't count him as a daimyo. I'm going to remove him from the list. If anyone has issue with this, feel free to put him back, and/or discuss it here (though, I scarcely ever check my watchlist anymore, so a message on my talk page saying you've responded would be most appreciated; sorry for the bother). Cheers. LordAmeth (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Are counts monarchs?

Several HRE counts etc. are included here. They are rulers of sovereign states, but are they monarchs? -- megA (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

When working through the HRE pages on wikipedia, I made sure to distinguish between sovereign states and appanages, and excluded the instances of co-rulers. Certainly, since the great mediatisation of the HRE in the first decade of the 19thC, there have been no more independent "Counties", and there aren't any now, but this shouldn't discount the fact that there were plenty of them with border disputes, etc., in the centuries before that. Therefore, I believe, Count or higher, if they are the sole ruler of a sovereign state, they are monarchs. Br.locke (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of monarchs of disputed reigns

It has already been argued that only monarchs with confirmed reign lengths should not be included in this list (see section "Japanese emperors"), and yet Pepi II Neferkare, Taejo, and Ermanaric the Ostrogoth are all included in the list. The rule that we apply to one case should be applied to all. Therefore those three monarchs with disputed reigns in the list should not be included unless all monarchs with disputed reigns are given credibility in the list.

It would make more sense to make another table on this page for monarchs with reign lengths that are unproven, as this would mean that all monarchs with unconfirmed reign lengths could be grouped together, and viewers can clearly differentiate between those monarchs whose reigns are confirmed and those whose are not.burbridge92 (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Flaw with "Length of Reign" timer

There is a flaw with the timer that measures the reigns of the current monarchs listed in this table. This can be demonstrated by comparing Elizabeth II's reign with Honore III's:

As of today (April 16th 2011):

  • Honore III: 59 years, 73 days
  • Elizabeth II: 59 years, 69 days

We can prove these year/day calculations are correct as:

Honore III:

  • From 1733 to 1792 there are 59 years.
  • From 7th November to 19th January there are 73 days.

Elizabeth II:

  • From 1952 to 2011 there are 59 years.
  • From 6th February to 16th April there are 69 days.

However, if we calculate the amount of days that both monarchs have reigned for (so far in Elizabeth II's case), we get the answers:

  • Honore III: 21,613 days.
  • Elizabeth II: 21,620 days.

This means that the reign of Elizabeth II has already surpassed the reign of Honore III, but because of the measurement being taken down in the list in terms of years/days the correct information is not displayed. This means that reign length in days should be added to the list for each monarch in order for an accurate measurement of reign length to be determined.burbridge92 (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem that I had previously noticed was caused by the United Kingdom's switch from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar which caused 11 days to be skipped. However, the addition of the day column has brought to light multiple other errors which can now be fixed. Also, the use of the Gregorian calendar to count the days also means many of the monarchs listed in the table need to be checked to make sure they haven't been given either more or less days to their reign due to their respective nation's conversion from Julian to Gregorian days. This in itself should be classed as a separate issue and be given it's own topic. burbridge92 (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A better example for why we need to include a day count for the reign length is comparing George III's reign to Elizabeth II's. According to the years/days column, George III's length of reign was 59 years and 96 days, and Elizabeth II's is currently 59 years and 73 days. 96-73=23, so according to the years/days count it will be 23 days from today's date (April 20th) that Elizabeth II's reign will match that of George III, and 24 days from now that Elizabeth II's reign will have surpassed that of George III. The date would then be May 14th.

However, according to the days count, George's length of reign was 21,644 days, whereas Elizabeth II's is currently 21,623. 21,644-21,623=21, so according to this count it will be 21 days from today's date that Elizabeth II's reign will match that of George III, and 22 days from now that Elizabeth II's reign will have surpassed that of George III. The date would then be May 12th, two days prior to the date that we get from the years/days count.

We know that it is the day count's value that is correct and not the years/days value due to the fact that the extra days in leap years are added into the year when counting years and days, and are not counted separately. This can be shown by the following calculations:

  • 1 January 2008 to 1 January 2009 (days): 366 = 366
  • 1 January 2008 to 1 January 2009: 1 year, 0 days = 1 year, 0 days
  • 1 January 2009 to 2 January 2010 (days): 366 = 366
  • 1 January 2009 to 2 January 2010: 1 year, 1 day = 1 year, 1 day

2008 was a leap year, so there were 366 days but all of those days occurred in the same year, hence the 1 year, 0 days for 366 days. 2009 was not a leap year, so in order to get the same amount of days as a leap year you have to go a day into the next year, which registers as 1 year, 1 day according to the formula of the years/days column of this list.burbridge92 (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Japanese emperors

Some legendary emperors had longest reignings:

--Taichi 06:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

These are only legendary emperors, the list should include only those rulars whose reigns can be confirmed.

Then when will we remove Pepi II Neferkare and Taejo of Goguryeo from the list? While they were real monarchs, the alleged 94 year and 93 year lengths of their reigns are almost certainly legends rather than fact. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I have stated this point in the discussion topic entitled "Issues with table". You are correct in that monarchs such as Pepi II Neferkare and Taejo of Goguryo have reigns which are unconfirmed (hence why their credibility is disputed) and they are no more verifiable than the reigns of the legendary Japanese emperors displayed here. As such they should not be placed in the same table as those monarchs whose lengths are confirmed because the validity of their given reign length is unproven and therefore questionable. All unverified reigns (both those in the table and others such as the Japanese emperors) should be placed in a separate table so that verified and unverified claims are ranked correctly. Burbridge92 (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The legendary Japanese emperors' should be placed in the second table on the page as their full length of reign is unknown. Their reigns should also be marked as "disputed" in the same way that Pepi II Neferkare's reign is. Pepi II's reign length holds no more certifiable weight than those of the Japanese emperors'. They should be treated as such. All monarchs of disputable lengths of reign should be treated the same, providing they're disputed reign is over 50 years they should be included if other disputed reigns are already included on the page. Burbridge92 (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Issues with table

There are a few issues with this table:

1) Firstly, as mentioned with in the discussion topic entitled "Flaw with "Length of Reign" timer", there is a problem with calculating how long a monarch reigns in years and days in that the template doesn't handle leap years well so there needs to be a days column in the table to compensate for this (this template has no problems with differentiating between years and leap years and is suitable work out when currently reigning monarchs surpass others). I did add this column previously but it was removed due to spurious amount of days given by the inaccurate reign start and reign end dates given for many monarchs on the page.

This brings me on to the next issues...

2) Monarchs who have either an incomplete reign start date, or an incomplete reign end date, or both, should be removed from the table and placed in their own table as their recorded reign length lacks specifics (although not disputed) and this causes problems for the table. They do not sit well amongst all of the monarchs whose exact reigns are known as their reigns can only be recorded in years and this leads to a load of monarchs with unverified exact reigns being clumped together (i.e. for a reign of 60 years we have ten individual monarchs, none of which reigned specifically for 60 years), as this is inaccurate information. Also, it means that when a currently-reigning monarch reaches a new year and passes the 0 days mark (such as Elizabeth II when her reign reaches 60 years and 1 day, assuming that she lives to reign that long) then that monarch will jump up multiple places in the list at once (in the aforementioned case for Elizabeth II 11 places) yet in truth the monarch will not have surpassed the reign of so many monarchs in such short time.

3) Furthermore, monarch's with disputed reigns also mess up the calculated length of reign as these only have an assumed approximation for their length of reign and this cannot be verified. They should be given their own table to separate them from those whose reigns are actually known. Sobhuza II has the longest verified reign of any monarch in history so he should come top of the main table based on factual evidence to support his claim.

On other pages that have lists of some kind, such as the List of surviving veterans of World War I page, unverified cases are rejected and not included on the page, for the sake of the accuracy and validity of the information provided on the page. Why shouldn't inaccurate and unverified claims be given any further weight here when they're just as woolly in terms of factual information?

There needs to be some form of discussion on this topic as these are pressing issues for the accuracy of the primary table on the page.Burbridge92 (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well... 1) While I do appreciate the effort put into calculating all the days of every monarch on this list, I really DON'T think that most readers will need to access this information via length of reign in pure days. We don't think of our lives in length of days (besides newborns), and as such it begins to lose meaning to have Elizabeth II at 20,001 days, and confusing (as you say) when the years/days don't match the pure days count: but consider that switching people up and down based on pure days would produce a visual conflict that would appear to most lay readers as an error in the list (e.g., your example with Honoré of Monaco). If you would like to have an alternative list that links to this page, where you have the list appear in order of pure days, that's fine, but it is more of a point of fascination than one which will help the average reader. (btw, I agree it IS fascinating).
2-3) I agree with you, partially, on this. I wouldn't want them removed from the page entirely - that would be tantamount to removing them from validity just because of our incomplete sources, when in fact they DID REIGN - but I can envision a page that includes more than one table. One would scroll down to view the second list of all the years-only (and/or disputed) monarchs. I like the look of the shortest monarchs list, which carves it up into "Less than one day," "Less than one week," etc. I'll look into the mechanics of doing this soon. Br.locke (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood a couple of the points I've tried to make. With regards to my first point, I was not suggesting removing the years/days column from the list, as this column sums up what the page is demonstrating it in its simplest form it would be wrong to remove it. My point is that the days column should be included as well as the years table purely for the reason of removing erroneous results due to leap years. There isn't any real effort involved either, as there is a template that calculates days just as there is a template that calculates years and days, and this could sit comfortably alongside the other column under the title of "duration". When the problem's relating to Elizabeth II surpassing George III originally occurred on the "longest reigning British monarchs" page the user who fixed the problem did just that, and there have been no problems or complaints regarding the way the table looks now, in fact I would suggest that it serves all intensive purposes. Of course your opinion might be different, so take a look and see what you think: List of longest-reigning British monarchs#United Kingdom. Furthermore, I don't think the creation of another page with the additional list that links to this page would be useful, as that would be an example of cluttering wikipedia with duplicate pages which, in essence, just provide the same material.
With regards to my second and third point I agree with you entirely, that's what I was suggesting in my initial post. I did not, and would not, assert that they should be disregarded out-of-hand. In fact you've more-or-less done what I was aiming to do by spliting the original table into the two that you have made.Burbridge92 (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
As if on cue, another error with the years and days calculations has come to the fore. We can check this by using the templates on this discussion page. According to the table (years and days), in seven days time Elizabeth II's reign will surpass the reign of Gustav Adolf...
  • Gustav Adolf's reign: 59 years, 166 days
  • Elizabeth II's reign on 23rd July 2011: 59 years, 167 days
Whereas, calculating the different reigns in days:
  • Gustav Adolf's reign: 21,715
  • Elizabeth II's reign on 23rd July 2011: 21,717
(If you click to edit this discussion you will see that these are the answers given by the actual templates that calculate the results, not my own mental arithmetic. I've checked the results on other date calculator websites to make sure it isn't a calibration issue, it's not.)
This clearly demonstrates that the date on which Elizabeth II's reign will surpass Gustav Adolf's reign will be on 22nd July, not 23rd July as suggested by the "year and day" count. Hence the reason why the "day" count should be included alongside the "years and days" count. Both counts will give an overall viewing of how long each monarch's reign lasted, in days to provide a precise numeric value, years to give an easier to digest overview of the situation.Burbridge92 (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Ok so we might be miners digging from opposite sides on this one. I think there are two separate points to clarify. 1) I agree that we have two competing systems of measurement, and I don't mind them both being on the same page. I guess we just have to decide which is the "default" (by which a monarch moves or is placed above/below a near neighbour). Basically, I feel that if we had two dead monarchs whose reigns were VERY close to each other, but where the absolute days conflicted with years/days, we should have years/days override absolute days and perhaps include a footnote to draw attention to the overlap. Anything else would appear like a mistake. I've just checked, and so far, none of our close ties present too much of a conflict for now.

2) What to do when Bhumibol, Elizabeth, and Tuanku approach another monarch in table one. My feeling is that these problems are unique, momentary events that resolve themselves: once a monarch "in motion" (alive) passes a monarch "in stasis" (dead!), they move up the list. The problem at stake (and this happens only a few times a year) is precisely WHEN to move them. Since they don't move up automatically (one of us does it manually), we are bound to be inaccurate: I'm in the Central time zone of North America, so WHEN exactly did Bhumibol surpass Victoria - his time zone, hers, mine - and if I change it in the evening versus the morning, what day does that constitute? To be honest, we usually make changes when we think to check the page and manually move a monarch. I'm okay with that. Br.locke (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think these points can be cleared up quite easily for us:
1) The default system of measurement needs to be the days count, as although you are correct that when measuring a lifespan people generally do it in years/days or years/months/days, when comparing lifespans it is impossible to be certain that you are getting the correct measurement unless you break years down into days to check (due to the existence of leap years, which is the reason we need to add a pure days measurement to the table at all). If leap years were not an issue I would not even have advocated the inclusion of a days column for the reasons you had already mentioned, as there would no reason to be so pedantic about measurements and the years/days measurement would suffice for all intensive purposes. The same issue was a problem on the List of longest-reigning British monarchs page, I didn't have a clue how to resolve it until another user suggested the inclusion of the day count, it's never caused any problems for anyone on the page.
With regards to the absolute days versus years and days in terms of contradiction, the absolute days should override the years and days in the list. The whole point of this page is to provide an accurate listing of monarchs in order of length of reign. If a monarch has been on the thrown for more actual days than another monarch, then they have reigned for longer than that monarch, regardless of whether the years and days measurement suggests otherwise (it would only suggest otherwise due to the extra day added from leap years). This would be the only way to rank the monarchs correctly. However, due to a monarchs only being able to have one leap year day advantage over another monarch (i.e. Elizabeth II who came to power in a leap year before the extra day, as opposed to Gustav Adolf who did not come to power in a leap year), this should never be a problem. The reverse should also never be an issue as it is possible for two individual monarch's to have reigned for the exact same period of time (as measured in days) but for one to have died during a leap year (after the extra day) as opposed to one who did not die in the leap year (or did die in a leap year but before the extra day). This occurs only once in the table, as both Wilhelmina and Philipp I both reigned for the exact same period of time, 21,104 days, but Wilhelmina lasted an extra day according to the years and days count. It is logical to just let this stand as it is, with Wilhelmina listed first, as the years and days count suggests she reigned for an additional day (even though she didn't).
Of course, as you suggested, it would make sense to come up with a footnote to explain why the days measurement is necessary (i.e. precision and correct results), and why the rankings cannot necessarily be made by the years and days measurement due to flaws with that measurement.
2) The issue with what you are saying here is that they were both measured by their own time zones. Victoria's reign was measured by GMT (Greenwich Mean Time), whereas Bhumibol's reign would accurately be measured by the time in his country. This means that Victoria is listed correctly on this list (as she is listed by the date's of her reign according to her own wikipedia page), but Bhumibol may not not be, as the measuring templates all measure at the same pace (i.e. an extra day is added to Bhumibol and Elizabeth II at the same time, even though a new day dawns at different times in the two countries due to differing time zones). This does mean that while living monarchs are on the list their length of reign is not going to be 100% accurate all of the time, and there is nothing that we can do due to the template's being what they are, they work the same on all pages on wikipedia on which their services are employed. Unfortunately this issue (to my knowledge) cannot be resolved until the services of the template as a continuing measurement are no longer required, such as when Bhumibol dies, if his date of death in his country were, for example, 18th August yet the template provided his reign length for 17th August, all that needs to be done is that the template is edited to include an end date, which will then mean that it shows the correct length of reign for Bhumibol and stops adding on days.
With regards to the flaws that this table may have due to the different hours at which different monarchs reign's started and ended there is little we can do. As far as I'm aware there is no template for measuring hours, at least not on the scale that this would require, and if there were, inclusion of it in the table would be mind-bogglingly confusing (imagine how large the numbers would be). This means that with regards to monarchs that have the same number of days on the throne to their name, it is impossible to rank them any further than they are ranked already (i.e. by the measurements currently employed on this page). This means that in some cases, such as the aforementioned case of Wilhelmina and Philipp I who both have the same number of days to their name, it is impossible to know in terms of anything more precise than the number of days that they reigned for if they are actually ranked correctly, or if Philipp I actually reigned for more time than Wilhelmina. Burbridge92 (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy to days instead of years

For many (most) of the monarchs on the list, more accurate dates are known; so they should be shown, which will result in reigns recorded accurate to days instead of years. If we don't know the exact number of days, then maybe we should decide to drop them from the list? Peterbr (talk) 10:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The only reason that days are actually needed on this is the problem of leap years leading to incorrect calculations (and therefore possibly incorrect ranking). This problem has been dealt with as the table exists at the moment. Burbridge92 (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Reason for including measurement in days

This discussion is purely in relation to the inclusion of the days column on the page, so that wikipedia users may understand the problems which are solved by the column is present, and can then discuss the options that we are left with.

It has been pointed out that historians actually measure the lengths of reigns in terms of years and days, hence why the "years/days" column is present in the table. However, the presence of the "days" column has been questioned. The reason why it is included in the table is that the template which measures "years/days", in the same way that historians (and in fact anyone), measures all years the same, regardless of whether they are years or leap years, and doesn't take into account that based on when a monarchs reign started there may or may not be an extra day added into the equation. This causes spurious results to occur (albeit occasionally), and this is why the template that measures "days" has been included, as it does not make the same error.

An example of this problem can be clearly seen in two reign's which will switch places this week, the reign of Gustav Adolf and the reign of the currently-reigning Elizabeth II.

  • Gustav Adolf's reign: 59 years, 166 days
  • Elizabeth II's reign on 23rd July 2011: 59 years, 166 days

Whereas, calculating the different reigns in days:

  • Gustav Adolf's reign: 21,715
  • Elizabeth II's reign on 23rd July 2011: 21,716

This clearly shows that Elizabeth II's reign will in fact surpass that of Gustav Adolf a day before the "years/days" column of the table suggests. The problem is caused by the fact that Elizabeth II's reign began on a leap year before the additional day, whereas Gustav Adolf's reign also began on a leap year but after the additional day, and the template for measurement of "years/days" fails to compensate for this.

A way in which this problem could be solved is by linking footnotes to any monarchs whose reigns are either incorrectly tied or incorrectly labled as different with regards to the "years/days" column. An example of an occurrence of this is the reigns given for the monarch's Wilhelmina and Philipp I. According to the "years/days" template, Wilhelmina's reign was a total of 57 years, 286 days, whereas Philipp I's reign was a total of 57 years, 285 days. However, the "days" template clearly shows us that Wilhelmina and Philipp I both reigned for the same amount of time: 21,104 days, which means that the "years/days" template has inaccurately labled Wilhelmina's reign as being a day longer than Philipp's. However, this information could be footnoted, and any other possible examples could be given the same treatment, which would eradicate the problem that the "days" column is currently required for.

A reoccuring problem will be the currently reigning monarchs, who, may regularly surpass the reigns of other monarchs a day before the "years/days" template suggests that they do (this is a regular occurrence for Elizabeth II). However, seeing as these monarchs are continuing to reign and the problem only causes a miscalculation by one day, the problem is not serious in relation to these monarchs as it will simply mean that they have surpassed another monarch when it is suggested that they have only reigned for the same amount of time (as opposed to less time, which means they can still be ranked above the other monarch who they've surpassed) and the problem will resolve itself within a day. Only when a currently-reigning monarch's reign ends does this become an issue as they stop moving up the table and need to be ranked correctly (at which point a footnote is necessary if there is an incorrect reign tie/reign difference).

If this is the option we ultimately decide to take, the actual ranking system of the table would be solved, but I would still suggest that a note is present somewhere on the page stating that all monarchs reigns are dated the same without leap years being taken into account, and this may mean that they have reigned a day more (if their reign started on a leap year before the leap day) or a day less (if their reign ended on a leap year after the leap day) than their reigns would appear to have lasted if an individual were to try and mathematically work out how many days a specific monarch had reigned for.

It was suggested that the table with the day count included should be placed elsewhere on wikipedia, but this would seem a bad idea as it would merely mean creating pages to duplicate information on wikipedia.

Any other suggestions would be much welcome in this discussion section. Burbridge92 (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The O le Ao o le Malo is a ceremonial president

I wrote to the Samoan government's website at and the response was that it was a ceremonial presidency.


from therequiembellishere@gmail.com
to contact@govt.ws
date Jul 15, 2007 2:12 AM
subject O le Ao o le Malo
mailed-by gmail.com
To whomever this letter concerns,
I write to you as someone who is avidly into geopolitics and as an amateur contributor to the internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Within the community, there is a question as to whether your Head of State should be seen as an elective monarch or as a ceremonial president, which would simultaneously answer as to whether the Independent State of Samoa should be considered a parliamentary monarchy or a parliamentary democracy.
I would graciously appreciate if this could be answered quickly, as I will by cut off from internet access in two weeks and would like to resolve the conflict within the Wikipedia Community as soon as possible.
Many Thanks,
Benjamin (last name omitted)


Response:


from presssecretariat@samoa.ws
to therequiembellishere@gmail.com
date Jul 17, 2007 8:08 PM
subject Re: O le Ao o le Malo
Talofa Benjamin,
Thank you for your enquiry. The Independent State of Samoa is a representative government. Our Head of State is a ceremonial president. Being free from politics, any law will not become law unless assented to by the Head of State.
Regards,
Deborah Mauinatu
Office of the Government Press Secretariat

Therequiembellishere 22:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

So, the ceremonial head *needs* to approve a law, or it's not a law? That doesn't sound like just a ceremonial head to me, even if by default (custom) he doesn't argue with the parliment...
~ender 2008-05-17 2:18:AM MST
Queen Elizabeth II also has to assent to a law for it to become a law. And parliament has passed no law since her predecessor Queen Anne refused to assent to a law in 1708 to remove that power from the sovereign. john k (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[[
Indeed, without the power of overseeing the passing of new laws the "head-of-state" position in itself would be defunct. Burbridge92 (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Samoa

Also, Malietoa Tanumafili II's reign was only from 1962 (independence) until 2007, although he inherited the title from his father in 1940, his country wasn't free. How should that be resolved? His wikipedia article lists him as the world's 3rd longest living monarch at the time of his death...
~ender 2008-05-17 2:17:AM MST

Firstly, the fact that he was the third longest-living monarch has no bearing on how long his reign was. Rama IX is not as old as Elizabeth II yet he's reigned for longer. Secondly, the fact that Malietoa Tanumafili II was monarch of Samoa from within New Zealand for the first 24 years of his reign does not change the fact that he reigned for over 67 years. Look at all of the monarchs within the Holy Roman Empire (marked as "HRE") that are listed on this page. Whether he was the monarch of a micro-state or not it doesn't matter, he still qualifies for this page. Burbridge92 (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Kalaimanuia

Should the Kalaimanuia the Queen of Oahu be listed as one of the longest reigning monarchs? She reign for a period of 65 years from 1600-1665. KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

She should definitely be in there somewhere. I think at some point I will take the time to go through all of the suggested additions in this discussion section and ensure that all monarchs who have been suggested which qualify for one table or the other are placed in their respective positions. Burbridge92 (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

sorting

The sorting is all screwed up... and the date formats are inconsistent. I dunno enough about the syntax to fix it though 83.146.14.150 (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No longer numbered. br.locke
The sorting still doesn't work correctly. If you sort according to the length of the reign, you first get all the people who only have straight years down to 50 and then all those with years and days given. --Krawunsel (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
This has been corrected now with the presence of the two separate tables for exact reigns and those which are not completely verfied. Burbridge92 (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sovereign states within the Holy Roman Empire (HRE)

I have been adding in monarchs from the various Holy Roman Empire states as I come across them in Wikipedia, or German Wikipedia (which has much more info). I added a note at the top, and the designation (HRE) next to the country name. I did not add this designation to 19th-century successor states, such as Saxe-Meiningen for example, that existed between 1806 and 1918. For monarchs whose reigns straddled the demise of the HRE, I simply included them without the designation, since their states would be more well-known by their subsequent, fully independent status. As a corollary, I am not including any of the mediatised princes that lost their land in the first decade of the 19th century, as they were no longer monarchs. Br.locke (talk) 9:42, 21 May 2010

All of this is correct, including what you said about the princes, as if someone destined to be a monarch loses their power but still claims to rightfully deserve it, they are pretenders to to that respective throne, not actual monarchs sitting on the thrown. A word to the wise however, if the German wikipedia has more information on certain areas of history as you have said, it would be a wise idea to translate as much as possible and place this info in the respective pages on the English-language Wikipedia. What's valid on one wiki is valid on all of the rest. Burbridge92 (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

non sovereign monarchs

Surely non-sovereign monarchs or those that rule over part of a country, as in the UAE or malaysia shouldn't be included in the same table as sovereign ones. I propose more than one table is used instead, one for pure sovereign monarchial head of states - being the prime table (on this one, for example, Sobhuza II of Swaziland would be ranked by his reign from 1968 (independence) onward), another for sub-national monarchs, such as local hereditary rulers during empire, indian princely states, states of the HRE, etc and people like the Zulu and Maori Kings/Queens and maybe one full one for comparison with those from different tables being indicated as such. Lemonade100 13:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This is unnecessary. Nowhere on the page does it say that the existing tables are purely for "sovereign monarchs", and sovereignty is not an issue even brought up on the page, let alone one that needs to be dealt with. This page is simply for "monarchs", so as long as the rulers are hereditary it doesn't matter whether they rule over whole states or regions within a state. Besides which, all non-state monarchs have the country their region is in listed beside the region in brackets, thus dealing with any confusion as to where in the world a country called "Phaltan" is for example. Yes this page already has two tables, but this present division is necessary, as it is impossible to rank reigns of a vague length alongside reigns of a known length. Burbridge92 (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Otto von Habsburg

... deserves a minor mention, as the longest serving 'claimant to a throne.'

The 70th anniversary is platinum - what would the few monarchs to have reached their 80th anniversary celebrate? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Reigning Monarchs

The list is supposed to be of reigning monarchs. According to the footnote, Sobhuza II became a monarch at 4 months. He did not, however, become a Reigning Monarch until 22 years later when his mother handed-over rule to him.

Thus the term of his reign needs be shortened by the days comprising that approximate 22 years. This same criteria of Reign should also be applied to other monarchs on the list. Note the difference between being a monarch and being the ruling monarch...the time period that someone else rules cannot be applied to a reign, but does not detract from being royal.

Further, I support the above comment regarding Sovereignty. Reigning over a province or principality within the Holy Roman Empire does not a sovereign monarch make. That local ruler is subordinate to the Emperor of the HRE, as well as Pope. You'll notice that this list is literally infested with 'monarchs' of small sections within the HRE. This quite laughingly diminishes the validity of the list.

If you need to make another list specific to monarchs within the HRE, do so. This list ought to be of Reigning Sovereign Monarchs. This, actually, is what is meant by people curious to know what monarchs reigned the longest, i.e., top-dog royalty in full sole charge of their nations.

Unfortunately, this would move Queen Elizabeth II, onto another list of--or that includes--figure-head top-dog monarchs and/or those with limited powers or duties. But that's the way it goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y.woodman.brown (talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Y.woodman.brown (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you with regards to sovereignty, for the points I've issued in the previous discussion. It doesn't "diminish the validity" of the list at all to include "monarchs of small sections within the HRE", on the contrary, as you have stated, these individuals are still "monarchs" none-the-less, and the issue of "sovereignty" is non-existant, as it is not mentioned either in the title or in the lead. The validity can only be diminished if this page is aimed at "sovereign monarchs", not "monarchs", but it is in fact aimed at the latter.
However, I do believe you have a point with regards to the use of the term "reigning monarchs". I do not think another table is necessary, as I don't think this page has ever been aimed at "reigning monarchs" in that sense but rather the length of time a monarch has been a monarch, and it's simply a case that the issue has not been picked up on. In this regard, I think it's the title of the page that needs to change to something like "List of longest-lasting monarchs" (I imagine there's better options available but I can't think of any off the top of my head). The table can then be left as it is, and a footnote can then be attached to all of the monarchs which did not reign for the full length of time from their coronation to their death/abdication which illuminates this fact. Burbridge92 (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with everything you said except for the removal of those HRE states, who lack sovereignty, and insignificant Indian raj states.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you ought to be very careful about any statements of the "sovereignty" of statelets in the Holy Roman Empire. The larger secular principalities certainly functioned exactly like sovereign states throughout the early modern period. The Elector of Bavaria or the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel had the ability to conduct an independent foreign policy, to have their own armies, and so forth, with only the most nominal responsibilities to the Emperor (to say nothing of the Pope, whose authority most of the secular princes rejected entirely, being Protestants). On the other hand, looking at the list, we've got a lot of imperial counts, who probably don't really qualify. I'd be strongly opposed to removing, for example, Karl Friedrich of Baden or Karl IV Theodor of the Palatinate. I'm more dubious of the right of, say, Bernhard VII of Lippe or Heinrich XI of Reuss-Obergreiz to be considered genuine monarchs. I'd say the cut-off point should be that princes of the Holy Roman Empire count, but that mere counts do not (with exceptions for cases like Georg Wilhelm of Schaumburg-Lippe, who started as a count but was eventually raised in rank). john k (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Skype ads?

Why are there Skype phone numbers in the section about rulers with unsure regnal dates? I'd get rid of them but I can't find them in the edit window. Is this a template hiccup? SigPig |SEND - OVER 05:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a bug in the Skype plugin you have on your browser, activated by certain strings of numbers which the plugin wrongly interprets as phone numbers. It is nothing to do with Wikipedia itself. MTC (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I dont see any.186.92.54.134 (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Titles

I think it would be beneficial to include the titles (Emperor, King, Duke etc.) of all monarchs listed. Would anyone disagree? 78.86.61.94 (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

William the conqueror

William the conqueror has been listed as monarch of Normandy. However, he was only a duke of Normandy, which was not an independent state since it was a part of France. The only dukes included on this list are dukes who were also heads of state. If we were to list dukedoms like this one, we would have to include the likes of the dukes of Cambridge, Cornwall, Marlborough, Rothesay, etc. Should he really be included? 2.100.155.165 (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

HRE states are the same. Nothing like dukes of Cambridge, Cornwall, Marlborough, Rothesay since the English nobility never enjoyed the independence of other Continental petty states.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The dukedom of Normandy was not like the HRE. The HRE was a federation under one emperor. The dukedom of Normandy only enjoyed more independence because of their position as king of England and the power that brings, not under a constitutional arrangement like that in the HRE. The HRE can be compared to Malaysia or the UAE today, while Normandy is similar to Marlborough (perhaps not Cornwall or Rothesay though). Often the dukedoms of England and Scotland had more power than the monarch, like in Normandy and the French kings. For example the Essex and Surrey dukedoms often held the true power in England during the Middle Ages, more so than what the Duke of Normandy did with respect to the French monarchs. 2.100.155.165 (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The duke of Normandy had authority over Normandy, albeit not (formally) final authority. The duke of Marlborough has no authority over Marlborough. —Tamfang (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Again, this is an inconsistency. Elizabeth II has no authority in the UK, albeit formal final authority. Like I said before, many of the dukes of England and Scotland had de facto authority over their dukedoms (and indeed over the entire country in some cases), just like the duke of Normandy did in France. However, none were de jure monarchs. The duke of Essex did have authority over Essex. The duke of Surrey DID have authority over Surrey. I suggest that these dukedoms are not added to the list and all similar dukedoms should not be kept on the list. Therefore, I argue that the dukes of Normandy do not form part of this list, in their rights as duke of Normandy alone. 80.47.90.78 (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Malietoa Tanumafili II

Can we really consider Malietoa Tanumafili II? He was appointed one of two joint heads of state for life not a monarch. The traditional title Malietoa was not one of kingship nor were they the only high chiefs of Samoa.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Either way we can't count from 1940 if we want to call his position as O le Ao o le Malo as monarch; we would have to start in 1962 which would make it 45 years. The title Malietoa, the one which he held from 1940, was no more a monarchical title than the other Samoan chiefly titles.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ibn Saud?

Ibn Saud ruled a succession of states continuously from the Battle of Riyadh on January 13, 1902 when he founded the Emirate of Nejd and Hasa to his death on November 9, 1953 as King of Saudi Arabia - a span of 51 years, 300 days where he was continuously monarch of at least the area around Riyadh. So should he be included in the table? Note that other monarchs, like Charles Frederick, Grand Duke of Baden, rule over several changes of domain as well. Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Wilhelmina of the Netherlands

I think Wilhelmina should be included here. She was queen of The Netherlands from november 23rd 1890 to september 4th 1948, meaning well over 57 years, longer than a number of monarchs on the current list. 62.238.249.71 (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

She is indeed there. Number 81 on the list. 80.47.91.168 (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

We should add a link to a more extensive list (or extend this one)

For research purposes, I need a list of all historically attested monarchs that have reigned for more than 31 years. Such a list would be much larger than this one and might not be practical on this page, but if such a list exists outside of Wikipedia, a link to it should be added in the external references section. Where could such a list be found? Nicolas Perrault III (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere. You will have to go through all the list of monarchs and rulers on Wikipedia and see which went for 31 years or beyond. And in the end you still can't get them all because we don't have bios or even article for every rulers/monarchs in history. This list is only made possible by all the editors scouring Wikipedia to find and list them.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps Wikidata will be of use for this type of query at some point in the future. A module could allow you to list all items within the category 'monarch' and sort by length of reign. Thanks for the response. (Also, there is no 31st monarch in your list). Nicolas Perrault III (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

rank

Why is there a rank 47 and 47a? 194.107.82.193 (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Citations needed?

In a list such as this, one can reasonably assume that the necessary sources that assert the length of these reigns are in the article linked here -- for example, the citations for the reigns of Sobhuza II of Swaziland or Pepy II of Ancient Egypt could be found in their articles. Which is fine. However, for a number of these monarchs there is no link, nor an article yet. IMHO, these need a citation to remain in this list. (Although isn't the fact a person was a monarch sufficient to meet the notability requirement, thus there should be an article about that person?) -- llywrch (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


Other royal records

Could there be a 'minor list' of other royal records?

Charles Prince of Wales has been 'heir to the monarchy' since his mother succeeded - a record that is unlikely to be matched for any heir across the world for a considerable time.

Otto von Habsburg was the 'heir or claimant' to some royal title (even if it is not quite clear what).

There are probably a few others who could be added. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Parakramabhahu of Anuradhapura

The entry for "King Parakramabhahu, Anuradhapura" appears to contradict the article on Monarchs of Anuradhapura, which lists four other Kings during the period indicated. It is also in a different format from the other entries in the list.

I am also supsicious of entries that claim accession and demise both on Jnauary 1, and an exact multiple of ten years apart. This hints that exact dates are not known.

The second list, of approximate reigns, lists the same reign for a different king of the same kingdom, except that it is from 437 to 367 BC, rather than 367 to 437 CE. Is the entry an alternate name of the same king?

--Cctimar (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Eric of Pomerania

I believe that Eric of Pomerania should be added to this list in his capacity as king of Norway 1389–1442 (53 years; as king of Dennmark and Sweden he only ruled for 43 years). One might argue that he was only nominally a king until his mother died in 1412, but the list alreday includes several other monarchs who have succeeded to their thrones as minors and have had to wait several years to become de facto rulers. /FredrikT (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor

ruled 53 years (1440-1493), please add.--Hyphantes (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Idris ibni Muhammad al-Qadri, Tunku Besar of Tampin?

There seems to be an error with the monarch mentioned in the title of this section. The source given fails to give the date of his accession to the title in the precision presented on this list. 101090ABC (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Bernhard VII

How are we defining monarch to be included in this list? Both Bernhard's and Lippe's pages describe him as a Lord not a King or Prince with Lippe only becoming a principality in 1789.

162.44.224.30 (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Khengarji III

The duration values do not match the birth and death dates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.219.251.47 (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Victoria and Elizabeth II's reigns

There seems to be a problem with the chart. As of today (7 September) it says Elizabeth II has reigned 63 years and 212 days and Victoria 63 years and 216 days ie there is a four day difference. However, in two day's time, on Wednesday 9 September, Elizabeth II will become the Commonwealth's longest reigning monarch:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34112486

Something is wrong here! Stronach (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's due to the times of day at which each monarch became Queen - i.e. what time their predecessor died - and the time at which Victoria died. Since the Wikipedia template only works with whole days and not hours/minutes there's a discrepancy of a day. It may be worth adding a note to explain this as it's likely to get a lot of hits in the next day or so. I'll do it later if no-one beats me to it.  — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 08:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

There will be a day discrepancy because 1900 is not a leap year, so Victoria reigned through fewer leap days. But the table is still currently showing 4 days out. This page appears to have it correctly and shows both number of days and years + days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_in_Britain_by_length_of_reign Athosfolk (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems all correct now, perhaps it was caching. Athosfolk (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The peculiarities of calendars :)

It looks as if both Elizabeth and Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX) will rise several places up the ranks in the next few weeks. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Karl IV Theodor

Should he be listed separately for Sulzbach, where he reigned for 9 years longer than he did in the Palatinate? john k (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Automating rank numbers?

Is there any way to automate the list's rank numbers, so that they will update themselves?—DocWatson42 (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

I recommend that we change Commonwealth realms to United Kingdom, with a footnote for the other Commonwealth realms, per WP:WEIGHT. The vast majority of reliable sources, show Elizabeth II first & foremost (mostly exclusive) as Queen of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Though it isn't my first preference & it doesn't adhere to WP:WEIGHT, I've chosen a compromise route, here. I replaced Commonwealth realms with United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand & moved the footnote next to Elizabeth II's name. I've done this, because as explained in the footnote itself, the 64 yr reign covers only the aforementioned 4 sovereign states. Besides, there's no such title as Queen of the Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: I've given Elizabeth II a second entry in the article, for her nearly 54 year reign over the sovereign state of Jamaica. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Notes

Something needs to be done with the notes on this page - at present the section is poorly managed to the point that the numbering re-starts itself halfway down the list. I've tried to implement changes to resolve the issue but they've been reverted so someone needs to come up with something which at the very least makes the section look considerably neater than it currently is. Kind regards, 5.80.225.78 (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

A classic example of a page where the the respective notes / references look tidier is the similar List of longest-ruling non-royal national leaders since 1900. Granted that page has less of both but can anyone legitimately argue that it's tidier than the one we have here? 5.80.225.78 (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth II Multiple Reigns

There is a duplication of information issue relating to Elizabeth II's reigns included on this page. Please see Current reigning monarchs by length of reign talk page discussion topic entitled "Duplication of Information"; as this essentially deals with the exact same issue on a separate page. Thank you. Kind regards, 5.80.225.78 (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I've modified the footnote, so that it doesn't directly mention Jamaica, now that we got her Jamaican reign displayed seperatly. GoodDay (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I would still say it's unnecessary as the Jamaican reign is listed on the page but as I've stated in the discussion on my talk page I'm going to refrain from editing these pages now as they're clearly not as important to me as they are to others. That said, would you mind taking a look at the references section at the bottom of this page and consider the contents of my previous discussion topic (above)? I still feel inclined to do something with the layout as it does seem (to me at least) to be a bit of a confused mess. Kind regards, 5.80.225.78 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand your concerns. Under the current setup, she'd have to reign another 17 years, before all her realms & reigns could be added to this article. Again, I'll only support clumping them all into one entry if we use United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
And with regards to the references? Under List of longest-reigning monarchs#Notes there's two sets of numbering; and one set is divided into columns. I've had a look at it and it's happening because someone has created another ref-list and hasn't separated the two out. Do you think we should clump all of the references in one list or try to separate them, as I did at this revision stage: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs&oldid=706695547 Kind regards, 5.80.225.78 (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Separate the references, if you can. BTW, if Elizabeth II is still reiging by this coming November 30? Her Barbados reign will be added to this article. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
BTW, there is another solution to having Elizabeth II with one entry - but again, I'd only support it if we could have United Kingdom with a footnote for the 15 other Commonwealth realms (showing their separate reigns). Change the entire entry criteria & list, from 'at least 50 yr reigns' to the top 50 longest reigning monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
That's duly noted, but personally I'm unconcerned about the Elizabeth II issue now. I'll look into sorting out that reference section when I get chance to. Kind regards, 5.80.225.78 (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The issue which I mentioned earlier on in this discussion has been dealt with. If anyone does see an error that I've made in the notes and references for this page please do not hesitate to mention it here or resolve it if you know how (there were a fair few shifts to be made on the page so it's quite possible I may have overlooked something). Kind regards, 86.148.52.140 (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Sultan Ismail of Morocco

The Sultan Ismail of Morocco has reigned 55 years, this is absolutely verified and you should not put his reign among those who's reigns are not exactly known! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.157.44.18 (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The “exact dates” unknown section does not imply that the number of years is in doubt, only that we don't know the length to a greater precision since we do not have an exact date (i.e the month and day in 1672) for the beginning of his reign. ―MJBurrage(T•C) 13:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
It is deeply not correct, the least that we can say, to systematically adopt a subjective sight toward Morocco, instead of normally reporting the truth. The exact date of the coronation of Sultan Moulay Ismaïl of Morocco is known since then: the 14th of april 1672 and his death the 22 of march 1727. So please correct your mistake and show respect to a whole nation. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.155.159.97 (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I can not understand why you removed again the correction about the Sultan Ismail. It has nothing to do with any academical work, this behaviour has no relation with the original aims of WIKPEDIA. Actually you are using this tool to flasify history and to lie. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.251.80.148 (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The coronation of Sultan Ismail was on 14 april 1672 in Fes. A source, another one, another one etc. --Skyfall (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Why include Tampin?

It's one thing to include the constituent states of Malaysia whose rulers alternate as head of state,or the direct monarchies beneath the Indian or Holy Roman Empires,but the Tunku Besar of Tampin is head of a minor constituent of a constituent state...he is not even one of the Undangs who select the ruler of that constituent state.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Sikiru Kayode Adetona

This traditional ruler of Nigeria shouldn't appear here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artegia (talk • contribs) 09:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted; he is only a traditional ruler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artegia (talk • contribs) 10:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Limiting the lists to 100

All (AFAIK) lists of this sort, i.e. those which are based on longevity, are limited to 100 entries. Why should this article be different? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I've no problems with changing the inclusion criteria, from at least 50 year reign to top 100 longest reigns. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Even changing the cutoff from 50 to 55 years would simplify maintenance.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
There being no objection I have modified the lists accordingly. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I was going to cut the list to 55+ years when Elizabeth passed 55 years on the Jamaican throne in August.Now we have to keep an eye out for her advent...--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Constantine VIII

Constantine VIII is here listed with a reign of 66 years, in reality his brother (Basil II, listed below him) was Emperor most of that time, his reign was just about 3 years. He was crowned as an infant but others were reigning, including his brother who reigned for 49 years (not 65 as listed). So, yes, he had the title, but since others were reigning most of those 66 years he shouldn't be on the list of " longest-reigning monarchs", maybe on another list of "people who lived a long time after being crowned", IF that's worth an article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Н Француз (talk • contribs) 18:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you are confusing "reigning" with "governing". --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:ExperiencedArticleFixer. Well you might argue that those brothers were reigning for 60 some years, yes. However this list is a list of "reigning monarchs". One thing for sure, neither was a monarch during half a century. Wikipedia defines a monarch as "a sovereign head of state in a monarchy". The Byzantine Empire wasn't a monarchy, since there were two co-Emperors (most of the time). This alone is enough to kick Constantine VIII out of this list. Constantine VIII, being the junior co-Emperor during 62 of the 65 years, was also neither sovereign nor head of state during that time. Significantly, their language was Greek and the title for Emperor was Basileos. As I recall, Greek poleis ruled by kings typically had 3 basileis (or was that just pre-classical Athens?), so king ≠ monarch. Н Француз (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

"As I recall, Greek poleis ruled by kings typically had 3 basileis (or was that just pre-classical Athens?), so king ≠ monarch. "

Kings are monarchs. You might be thinking of Sparta. Its regime was a diarchy, with two co-ruling kings sharing power. It actually had two co-ruling dynasties: the Agiad dynasty and the Eurypontid dynasty. See: List of kings of Sparta. Dimadick (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II rein

H.M. Queen Elizabeth II has reined a total of 63 years and 1 day (as of February 7,2015). I tried to edit it from 62 years but couldn't. Please fix/ tell me how to edit this situation. Johnalexander Zarcp February 8, 2015

I thing you are using the wring verb. The proper verb & noun in English language are reign, not "rein". --AVM (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I think you are using the wrong verb and adjective. The proper verb and adjective in THE English language are 'think', not 'thing', and 'wrong', not 'wring'.

Does anyone know how the duration in years and days is calculated? Today is the 66th anniversary of her becoming queen, but her duration is 65 years 359 days. Does she take one day off each decade? :) Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.29.176.74 (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The article lists here reign in the UK, Canada, Australia & New Zealand as being 66 years, today. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
It was probably your browser cache. On pages like this, you sometimes need to refresh it. The way I do it is submitting a blank edit, which forces it to refresh, while not actually changing the page or history. Some pages have a refresh button, but usually not main pages Emk9 (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Princely state rulers

This list includes several princely state rulers of India, who were not "monarchs": they were subordinate to the British crown. Either the article title should be changed, or these rulers should be removed from the list. utcursch | talk 19:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

It also includes other subordinate states, such as those that were part of the Holy Roman Empire. Other notable subordinate states include Aquitaine (part of France and Alienor was also only a Duchess - which is even more removed than a prince) and our number 1 spot (Sobhuza II) who was subordinate to the British for much of his reign too. If we are to accept these reigns, we must also accept the princely states. If we were to remove the princes of the Indian states, we would have to remove the others too for the same reason. In defence of the Princes (and most of the others), they were recognised heads of royal families and the British recognised them as rulers too. Prince Regnant are usually counted as monarchs such as Prince Albert II of Monaco. The argument to include Alienor of Aquitaine on this list are less convincing for the reasons you give.TTFTAKM (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
"It also includes other subordinate states, such as those that were part of the Holy Roman Empire." Would you exclude rulers of vassal states and tributary states? Dimadick (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, if those people were not sovereign rulers, they should be removed from the list as well. Alternatively, the article should be moved to something like List of longest-reigning rulers. According to Wikipedia as well as other sources (e.g. Oxford dict), a monarch is a sovereign head of state. utcursch | talk 19:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Personally I would include the Indian princes and the HRE rulers, but I was laying out the argument, of which I think both sides would have valid arguments. I think Alienor of Aquitaine should not be on the list because she was not holding a royal title in right of the dukedom (for which she earns her place in this list). I would equate the HRE rulers and Indian princes to the likes of the emirates in the UAE or the various kingdoms in Malaysia today. Dukedoms are not exclusively royal. TTFTAKM (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The Indian princes led protected states who were considered entitled to independence (though all were arm-twisted into signing away their independence in 1947).As noted above,however,the inclusion I particularly object to is the Tunku Besar of Tampin,who was a level (or more) below the current Malay rulers.12.144.5.2 (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Tunku Besar of Tampin sounds similar to Alienor of Aquitaine. I would support taking both off the list and any others in similar positions. However, I would not support removing the Indian Princes etc.TTFTAKM (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Also having a hard time understanding why this list has so many of these... both the stately princes, and the subjects of the HRE. It's a list of "monarchs" - literally, one ruler. A lord of some state in the HRE, who is subject to an emperor, is not, in any way, a monarch. Including these leaves this list pretty worthless.
I agree. It's especially absurd to include leaders of a clearly subordinate Grafschaft (county) in the HRE like Lippe (pre-1789) or Henneberg-Schleusingen which I wouldn't even consider as states - they are not at all monarchs and should be removed. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I've no objections to deleting 'princely state rulers' from this article. GoodDay (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
We'd be down to about 30 of the current list if we took out everyone with a suzerain. So how do we set the new list size or cutoff? LE (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
We could mark monarchs of subordinate realms in italics? —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't like that, because then the subordinates would still overwhelm the "real" monarchs visually. (I wouldn't mind making a separate list for them, though.) But until last year, the cutoff for this list (see a discussion above) was 50 years of reign, resulting in 201 entries, of which some 60 were sovereign monarchs. So we could just reinstate those "real" monarchs deleted last year from the edit history to get to ~60 entries as a first step. Then, I'd suggest either reducing the cutoff to 40 or 30 years to get back to ~100 entries, or just keeping it as a nominal Top 100 - the editing community will surely add the missing ~40 entries within a few weeks or months. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I do actually quite like the idea of a separate list. I find the current list confusing, but also think these long reigning princes worth cataloging, if lower down on the page. I'm not sure a reign of 30 years is that notable though? At least for a list of such records. I've no major objection to their inclusion, but it seems more above average than clearly listworthy. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Probably you're right and reducing the limit to 40 years is enough. I was looking at the age limit for the non-royal leaders list (currently 30 years, but about to be reduced), but of course monarchs have longer reigns on average. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Referring back to a discussion above, why would Eleanor of Aquitaine be excluded? Was Aquitaine not a sovereign state at the time, even if it ceased to be at a later point? —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Pepin II of Aquitaine was the last ruler I'd consider a sovereign.LE (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
According to Duchy_of_Aquitaine#Angevin_Empire, Aquitaine belonged to the crown of France from 1137-52 and to the crown of England from 1153/54-99, so at best Eleanor was a sovereign ruler for 7 years, while just being Queen consort of France resp. England for most of the remaining time.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Having stepped down from being a kingdom to a duchy already implied loss of sovereignty. Charles the Bald's defeat of Pepin II had lasting consequences.LE (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Dukedoms doesn’t necessarily mean a loss of sovereignty, but in this case I would not think of Aquitaine being independent at all. Back to the main point of the princely states and the HRE, I am still not in favour of losing them off this list. They had a large degree of autonomy, admittedly they were only allowed from their emperors, but it meant they were rulers to a certain extent. Some would be more powerful than the constitutional monarchs of today. They’re not entirely comparable to today’s monarchs or the idea of monarchy that we think of in the UK, for example, but they were part of the constitutional arrangement and had real powers. They are far closer to the current Emirs of the UAE, who have a President as head of state, but each emir still has great powers in each of their Emirates. TTFTAKM (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

In line with this discussion, I've moved princes and vassals to a separate list. I won't claim the knowledge to know that such and such a monarch should be in one list or the other, I took my lead from the notes on the table as it was. I'm sure discussion will continue on how to categorise particular rulers. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Maybe an expert can comment on Friedrich Günther of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt? Also it starts to make one wonder about what is a 'monarch'. A non-elected head of state? A hereditary office? The Kims of North Korea...
Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt was, from 1815 to 1918 a sovereign principality within the German Empire. Previously, it was a reichsunmittelbarkeit (immediate fief) within the Holy Roman Empire. Was it a "monarchy" during part of any of this time? I would say yes, because the definition of "monarchy" used by post-medieval historians is that it is a people (nation) or realm (domain) over which authority is exercised that consists of certain prerogatives associated with sovereignty. Those prerogatives constitute all or some of the functions today exercised by government, e.g. the right to enact legislation, to mint coins, to enforce laws (police powers) and to administer justice (judicial powers). Sovereignty need not, however, include independence, which is why I think that this discussion is bogged down in deciding who was and was not a monarch. A monarch may exercise sovereign powers within his/her realm, without the legal or de facto authority to govern the realm's external affairs. The concept central to "monarch" is reign: monarchs "reign", whereas nobles enjoy privileges. The distinction between "royalty" and "nobility" is not that the former have no suzerain above them, but that they "reign" over people below them. Although Imperial Prince's of the Holy Roman Empire were subordinate to the emperor, still they "co-ruled" the Empire because each held an individual "seat and vote" as a member of the Empire' legislature, the Imperial Diet. Thus they differ from the British peerage and Continental nobility in the era of modern history because the latter shared power with the monarch in governing the realm, but they had little direct authority over other humans in their domain which they had the right to enforce without appealing to a higher authority (a king, magistrate, sheriff, etc.). As a rule, monarchs have such authority, nobles have it not (even those who had serfs lacked it: a serf is a person bound to provide service to private property and is directly answerable to the property owner. Anyone who owned property that came with serfs held the same authority, whether the owner was a king, count or peasant. Monarchs exercise direct authority over people who do not live or work on the monarch's private property). The problem with excluding Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt as a "mere" county from being a monarchy, is that until the Empire was abolished in 1806, it's status was exactly like that of the Kingdom of Bohemia: a domain whose ruler held reichsunmittelbarkeit (answering to no one except the Holy Roman Emperor) and enjoyed Landeshoheit (internal sovereignty) since the Golden Bull of Sicily in 1212. Since a "king" is universally understood to be a legal monarch par excellence, and yet the King of Bohemia's status was the same as that of the Prince of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, both should be deemed monarchs, as should any other non-European ruler of equivalent status. This status need not be extended, however, to Imperial countships, because those below the rank of prince did not possess an individual seat or vote in the Empire's Reichstag, and thus were not deemed Hochadel, i.e. royalty. FactStraight (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
The German Empire began in 1871 not 1815.LE (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
The list contains two entries for Muhammad Jiwa Zainal Adilin II of Kedah. According to the article, he accepted Burmese suzerainty and also paid tribute to Siam. Thus he was not a sovereign monarch in the true sense. Hence deleting his entry in the sovereign list and retaining his entry in the dependent monarchs section. Gurumoorthy Poochandhai  06:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I believe Saluzzo should also be moved as the HRE was its suzerain at the time.LE (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The "Monarchs whose exact dates of rule are unknown" section also needs to be sub-divided into sovereign monarchs and Dependent/constituent rulers. utcursch | talk 19:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs/Archive_1&oldid=1046609028"