Talk:List of British monarchs by longevity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Calculation[edit]

Is it me or do the first two in the list not add up properly?

Victoria
29,829 days
81y 7m 29d
George III
29,823 days
81y 7m 25d
Difference
6 days
4 days

violet/riga (t) 00:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have independently noticed the same issue, and I prepared the following question before I was aware of yours. JackofOz 03:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anomaly[edit]

We say that if QE2 lives to 16 December 2007, she would surpass George III, and if she lives just 4 more days to 20 December, she will be older than Queen Victoria. This is obviously based on the 4-day difference between the 81y7m25d of George and the 81y7m29d of Victoria. However the previous column, in days only, suggests they were not 4, but 6, days apart in age at death (29829 – 29823 = 6).

I understand why these would come out differently. Months have varying lengths, so one month does not necessarily equal another. That's OK, as far as it goes. And we have to choose one yardstick over another. So, if we’re going to use the final YMD column as the primary yardstick, we should (a) make it clear that that's the one we're using, and (b) therefore put it in a more prominent position, to the left of the Days column.

This also leaves the issue of why we calculate their lives in Days at all, if we never use that information for anything. JackofOz 03:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented my own recommendation (a), but another editor has now removed it. Back to square 1. I'll wait to what others have to say before taking any further action. JackofOz 11:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the more accurate a measurement of longevity would be days alone, as months can vary. Hence I would use the six day difference to calculate when QE2 becomes the oldest reigning monarch. Rossenglish 17:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Months isn't the only problem. The years/days and years/months/days templates fail to take into account leap years. This could also have a negative effect on the accuracy of the table, but only by one day, no more. Burbridge92 (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NEW MATH[edit]

George's total is off by 1 day. His total days lived is 29,824. Here's how the math works out -- and it all comes down to the anomaly of what we call Leap Year. Using only the day of Birth OR Death (not both) the math works.

- George III lived 61 full years (non-leap years) = 61x365 = 22,265 days. He lived 20 full Leap years = 20x366 = 7,320. He then lived 239 days over that. Note that he died on Jan 29, which was before the extra day in the leap year (1820). Total days lived is 29,824.

- Victoria lived 60 full years (non-leap years) = 60x365 - 21,900 days. She lived 21 full Leap years = 21x366 = 7,686. She then lived 243 days over that. Total days lived is 29,829.

With both Monarchs living very close in their total number of days, the variance could only be 1 day when accounting for Leap Years.

Hope this helps the discussion. ZamTx1 13:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That has been an issue with the years/days template for a long time, but the way you've demonstrated it clearly shows the problem to everyone. Thanks. Burbridge92 (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British monarchs 1603-1707 ?[edit]

This article contradicts List of British monarchs, List of English monarchs, Union of the Crowns, Acts of Union, 1707. James I/VI through Anne (pre-1707) -were not British monarch- they were concurrently English, Scottish, Irish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also inconsistent with List of British monarchs by length of reign. That list and List of British monarchs use the term "British monarchs" to refer only to those monarchs since the Acts of Union 1707. Goustien (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Category:British monarchs uses "British monarchs" in a broader sense, to contain articles "about crowned heads of the United Kingdom and its predecessor kingdoms and principalities." Goustien (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The List of British monarchs by length of reign has the right idea, breaking the monarchs into their separate categories. This way all of them can be included but aren't labled incorrectly. However, seeing as this page has so few monarchs, breaking up the table would serve no useful purpose without the addition of more monarchs to their respective tables (i.e. more England and Scottish monarchs included to go with James I/VI through to Anne. Burbridge92 (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and Death or Birth or Death?[edit]

In prior entry, an editor assumed that the total days lived should include either the date of death or of birth in the count. I take no stand on the issue, but want to know which is intended to be used in the calculation of a person's age in days for this article. By way of illustration, assume a person is born on 1 January 2000 and dies on 2 January 2000. Do we, for the purposes of this article, consider the person to have lived one day or two? -Rrius (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The decision that the birth and death dates should be reckoned in with the total number of days lived makes good sense. ZamTx1 (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would make the best sense to include all days including birth and death date, but as long as we give all monarchs the same treatment it won't skew the table's ranking system. Burbridge92 (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relative Ages of George III and Victoria[edit]

No matter how I run them, I cannot get the six-day difference indicated by Longevity in Days column of the chart in this article. By my math, the difference is five days. I arrived at my answers by hand and confirmed them with MS Excel (because 1900 is the start of time for Microsoft, I transposed the monarchs' lives to begin in the 21st century.

As an initial matter, I must point out that years divisible by 100 but not by 400 are not leap years under the Gregorian calendar. Thus 1800 and 1900 were not leap years. I should state that I assumed, for the purposes of this article, that we include both the date of birth and the date of death in the Longevity in Days column.


George III[edit]

George III was born on 4 June 1738. That was the first of the last 211 days of 1738; thus, GIII lived 211 days in 1738.

1739-1819: GIII was alive for 81 whole years, of which 19 were leap years (remember that 1800, despite being divisible by four, was not a leap year). Therefore, GIII lived ((81 × 365) + 19) = (29,565 + 19) = 29,584 days.

1820: Finally, GIII was alive for the first 29 days of 1820.

Total: (211 + 29584 + 29) = 29,824 days George III lived, including his date of birth and date of death.


Victoria[edit]

Victoria was born on 24 May 1819. That was the first of the last 222 days of 1819; thus Victoria lived 222 days in 1819.

1820-1900: Victoria was alive for 81 whole years, of which 20 were leap years (remember that 1900, despite being divisible by four, was not a leap year). Therefore, Victoria lived ((81 × 365) + 20) = (29,565 + 20) = 29,585 days.

1901: Finally, Victoria was alive for the first 22 days of 1901.

Total: (222 + 29585 + 22) = 29,829 days Victoria lived, including her date of birth and date of death.

As a result of this, I am changing George III to 29,824 days. Rrius (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your maths. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you have to remember is that the templates don't take a lot of things into account. They don't acknowledge leap years at all (apart from the days template). Extraordinary common years may be missed by the templates for that reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burbridge92 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should George II and George III's days be reduced by 11 days?[edit]

Eleven days were omitted from 1752 (3 September to 13 September) to transition from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar. My best understanding is that George II was born on 10 November 1683 (Old Style) and that George III was born on 4 June 1738 (OS). I will not edit those numbers at this time pending others' thoughts and my own research. Rrius (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our George III article says he was born 24 May (OS) = 4 June (NS), which my private notes concur with. Nothing in the George II article, but my private notes reveal he was born 30 October (OS) = 10 November (NS). Thus, both dates are in NS and no adjustment is necessary. It would be good to find a backup source for G2, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I googled george ii "New Style" under advanced search limited to 10 results. An indented link states that George II was born 31 October (OS), but the link is not publicly available. -Rrius (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


ELIZABETH II[edit]

In light of the discussions above concerning the inclusion of dates of birth and death, Elizabeth II's total is off by one day. Today's (12/12/07) total on this page shows 29,820 days lived, but does not reflect the day of her birth 

    Leap Years - 20 full leap years lived, including 2000 as a leap year - (366x20 = 7320)
    Common Years - 60 full common years lived. (365x60 = 21900)
    2007 - as of December 12, 2007 = 346 days
    Birth year - May-December = 245 days
    Birth month (including day of birth) - 10 days (April 21-30)
    Math
    21,900
     7,320
       346
       245
    +   10
    29,821

Hope this helps the discussion. ZamTx1 (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is how it works[edit]

May 24th, 1819 was a Monday and January 22nd, 1901 was a Tuesday

April 21st, 1926 was a Wednesday and December 20th, 2007 was a Thursday

So today, December 20th, 2007, Queen Elizabeth is as old as Queen Victoria was the day she died. Remember that 1900 was not a leap year. Calle Widmann (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, but I think Victoria was actually wrong because, unlike most of the people on the list, the day she was born and the day she died were both counted. I may even have been the one who did it. I have gone back and figured out where others were wrong and fixed them too. Some were way off. I also fixed the year, month, day count for a few people.
I also took the liberty of putting the language regarding surpassing Victoria back in since it will not happen until 21 December, but modified the section to note the tie. I also changed Victoria's "2" to a "1" for the time being because of the tie. -Rrius (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit summary you noted that the Queen will pass Victoria late in the afternoon of 20 December (UTC). The Palace is putting that information out there and is basing it on the times of birth. Since this list is not that precise (i.e., not to the hour), can we agree not to make the change until 21 December? -Rrius (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I was wrong. Calle Widmann (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, there are so many mistakes on this and the longest reign page that no one can be blamed for not looking at how any given mistake was made. I'm glad you wrote it out because I never thought of using day of the week to verify. What did you use to find the days of the week for the older dates? -Rrius (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used a calendar that I have made myself. I'm a calendar freak. With my calendar it only takes me a few seconds to find out the day of the week of any date since before the Middle Ages in the Julian Calendar, the Gregorian Calendar and the 1700-1712 Swedish Calender. But you can also find numerous sites on the Internet which helps you with that, I guess. Calle Widmann (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future of the Article[edit]

Until now, there has been a reason to keep updating Elizabeth's days-alive count. After 21 December, that reason is gone. Is there something automated that can count the days alive (i.e., subtract 21 April 1926 by the current date)? If so, I suggest we use that and leave the year, month, day spots blank until she dies. If there is no automated counter, I suggest we leave both blank until she dies. Alternatively, we could replace the semi-automated counter with the actual year, month, day as of 21 December and let people update as they see fit, but include an "as of [date]" note for clarity. -Rrius (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy with 'length of reign' page[edit]

This page says that Elizabeth II will surpass Louis XIV in 2025, but the List of longest reigning Monarchs of the UK page says that she will do so in 2024. Which is right?-anguswalker (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I have changed that. Calle Widmann (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus here, and List of English monarchs was not moved either. Ucucha 16:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


List of British monarchs by longevity → List of British rulers by longevity — In view of Richard Cromwell's great longevity, I think it would be useful to include him and Oliver Cromwell in the same ranked list with the monarchs, rather than in a separate header note. An alternative name would be List of British heads of state by longevity--cf. Category:English heads of state (but that name could be confusing since that category includes regents as well as rulers). Goustien (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose The existing mention is more than sufficient to discuss a person who lived much of his life after ruling and is so different from the rest of the people listed. The existing arrangement is preferable to shoehorning him into a list of monarchs. -Rrius (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the Cromwells weren't monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but the Cromwells were rulers/leaders. They were very important and to exclude them because of dubious reasons is unwise. Flamarande (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Richard Cromwell should be deleted from this article. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See further arguments pro and con at Talk:List of English monarchs#Requested move. A consistent decision should be made on these two requested moves. Goustien (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Rrius: Edward VIII also lived much of his life after ruling: he reigned 325 days, then lived 35 years after his abdication, compared with Richard Cromwell, who ruled 264 days, then lived 53 years after his resignation. Length of rule is not a good argument to exclude someone from the list. Goustien (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But Edward was actually King. It would be silly to redefe the article to shoehorn in a guy who wasn't a monarch, only briefly ruled, and didn't reach his final days as head of state. -Rrius (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Elizabeth I ?[edit]

Why is Elizabeth I not in the list? She died at 69... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.104.146 (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth ruled before the Union of Crowns, but his list only takes into account those coming after. -Rrius (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Indeed, Elizabeth I was never British monarch. She was an English monarch, just like Henry III (56 yr-reign), Edward III (50 yr-reign). Same as James VI being a Scottish monarch (58 yr-reign) for examples. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but the page for longest-reigning British monarchs incorporates a section for English monarchs, and the pages should be treated the same. If one page makes allowances for pre-British monarchs, there's no reason why the other should not. SAULGNRFAN (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Edward III on the list but not Elizabeth 1?

Edward III, Elizabeth I, and Edward I are all excluded due to definition of list: only British monarchs after the Union of the Crowns of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1603. If the list is redefined, they may be included. Goustien (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1707 Act of Union[edit]

With the exception of Anne, the Stuarts should be deleted from this article. GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, all of the Stuart's reigned over the kingdom's of both England and Scotland (albeit before the 1707 Act of Union) so I'm not sure whether I agree with you with regards to them being removed from the page. However, I agree that they should be given their own section if they are to stay on the page, as the difference between the era's of England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom should be labelled. It is also imperative that a decision is made as to whether different sections are given to different periods of the nations history as all English monarchs dating back to 924 A.D. are mentioned on the page regarding longest-reigning monarchs, yet only those monarchs who ruled over the combined nations are listed here. SAULGNRFAN (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longest-reigning[edit]

"18 October 2034, she would surpass Sobhuza II of Swaziland as the monarch with the longest precisely dated reign. At that point she would be 108 years, 180 days old."

I just want to point out that this is contingent on the current king of Thailand, Bhumibol Adulyadej, no longer being alive by then, as he is the longer-reigning of the two of them. Tad Lincoln (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louis XIV of France[edit]

Louis XIV of France is given as the longest reigning monarch in European history, but a glance at the List of longest reigning monarchs of all time clearly shows us that there are multiple other European monarchs who have reigned for longer periods of time than Louis XIV. Even on Louis XIV's page he is credited as having "one of the longest documented reigns of any European monarch", and not as the "longest reigning monarch in European history". The only way in which Louis XIV is Europe's longest reigning monarch ever is in terms of states other than microstates, in which case the sentence needs to be edited. The longest-reigning monarch in European history overall is Bernhard VII. Burbridge92 (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between this page and the Longest Reigning British Monarch page[edit]

The page List_of_longest-reigning_British_monarchs includes separate tables for the top 10 reigning monarchs in the history of the British isles, the list of British monarchs by length of reign, and then lists for the longest reigning monarchs of each of the countries pre-union. This page only shows the longest reigning British monarchs. I would think that both pages should really represent the same monarchs overall.

Furthermore, considering that the pre-Stuart eras are not taken into account, are we sure that Richard Cromwell is currently the longest lived head-of-state in the history of the British isles, or only the time period covered? If he isn't the longest overall, shouldn't the longest lived leader in the entire history of the British isles be added as a note in the "The current monarch" section. Burbridge92 (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Cromwell[edit]

As Elizabeth II's longevity will have surpassed that of Richard Cromwell in the next fortnight, the mention of Cromwell's longevity in the lead will become redundant, and thus should be removed. However, it seems sensible to ask if anyone can think of any reason why Cromwell's longevity should still be mentioned on this page before such removal. Any thoughts? Burbridge92 (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd move the mention of him down to the bottom of the page, instead of the top (and of course update it to note he's now second), but I'd keep a mention on the page. -- Jake (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any reason to retain any mention of him. DBD 23:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Jake has a point, in that maybe it would be a good idea to replace Victoria's mention at the bottom with Cromwell's, after all he did outlive her, and was a British ruler (hence why he's mentioned on the page at all). Burbridge92 (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there's alot of entries that don't belong in this article (i.e. the English, Scottish & Irish monarchs), anyways, Richard Cromwell was never a monarch, he should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, and also justifies your removal of the pretender mentioned, which I was going to enquire about. Thinking about it, seeing as the page is about monarchs, the lead for the current monarchs section should remain with Victoria. Kind regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although the article title is about "monarchs," I think both Oliver and Richard Cromwell deserve at least a footnote. Compare List of monarchs of the British Isles by cause of death and List of English monarchs (which includes a section on the Commonwealth). List of longest-reigning British monarchs includes notes about pretender James Francis Edward Stuart. Perhaps a section on "Pretenders and Protectors"? Goustien (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the issue then would be where to stop with the add-on's. The pretender who would have been the longest lived monarch had he actually reigned used to be included at the bottom of the page, so if we included the Cromwell's as non-monarchs would we include the would-have-been monarchs as well? It's a grey area when it comes to including those who don't actually meet the criteria of the page, and there's bound to be some arguments on the matter about which additional's should be included and which should not. Burbridge92 (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward I[edit]

Why is Edward I not in the list? He lived 67 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miloradovan (talk • contribs) 13:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of British monarchs by longevity since the Union of the Crowns of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1603. Edward I was an English monarch, not a British monarch. See similar discussion above under Elizabeth I. Goustien (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete[edit]

This isn't a complete list. It's just a Top 19 list. Should it be either completed or renamed/moved?—GoldRingChip 12:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current Monarch: Days added to year[edit]

I listed this at Talk:List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign#Reigning Monarch: Days added to year, so thought I would here: 1)- Every article using this has to be updated every 24 hours or be outdated. 2)- It is trivial, unimportant, and "only" becomes necessary when two Monarchs, that are deceased, share the same year of age at death. The current monarch will likely not be matched for years. Otr500 (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article title & inclusion criteria[edit]

This article title should be changed to List of British, English and Scottish monarchs, with the inclusion criteria expanded to monarchs who reigned in England only, England/Ireland only & Scotland only. If not?, then the list should be limited to post-1707 monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge into List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign[edit]

This article adds nothing and has no reason to exist when we already have List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign. Richard75 (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - As this article lists them via life-span, not reign length. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge of both of these into List of British monarchs. No reason that can't be handled by a sortable column in the main article. There's really no need for three lists when we have the ability to sort lists. oknazevad (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge - Redundant to have two seperate articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.44.26 (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_British_monarchs_by_longevity&oldid=1173615466"