Talk:Regnal years of English and British monarchs

❧

Wikipedia

Confusing wording

Use of 1 Mary 1 s. 3 is not a very good example and can be confusing to readers. It currently reads: "because it was the first act passed in the third session of the parliament begun in the first year of the reign of Queen Mary". Actually no. It happens to be the third parliamentary session in Mary's first year, but it is actually the first session of the second parliament begun in the first year of Mary (first parliament only had two sessions, s.1 & s.2, second parliament had one - s.3). The way it is currently worded is confusing.

First Parliament of Mary I began October 5, 1553 to December 6, 1553. It had two sessions: the first session (1 Mary 1 sess.1) ran from October 5 and passed only one act (Treason Act) before being formally prorogued on October 21. Second session (1 Mary 1 sess.2) began only a few days later, on October 24, and ran until December 6. Then the first parliament was dissolved, and new writs issued on Feb 20, 1554 for a second parliament to meet in April.

Second parliament of Mary I began April 2, 1554 (still within her first regnal year), and ran for only one session. This first and only session of the second parliament is designated (1 Mary 1 sess.3) and ran from April 2 to May 5, 1554. It was was dissolved May 5.

(To make life complicated, Mary's third parliament happens within 1554, but mercifully already in her second regnal year. Alas, she had married Philip on July 25, so her third parliament (which also only ran through one session, from Nov 12 1554 to Jan 16, 1555) is denoted "1 & 2 Philip & Mary").

In sum, chronologically:

  • Beginning of first regnal year of Mary I - July 5, 1553
  • 1 Mary 1 sess.1 - first session of Mary's first parliament (Oct 5-Oct 21, 1553)
  • 1 Mary 1 sess.2 - second session of Mary's first parliament (Oct 24-Dec 6, 1553)
  • 1 Mary 1 sess.3 - first (& only) session of Mary's second parliament (Apr 2- May 5, 1554)
  • End of first regnal year, begin second regnal year of Mary I - July 6, 1554
  • Beginning of first regnal year of Philip within second regnal year of Mary - July 25, 1554
  • 1 & 2 Philip & Mary - first (& only) session of Mary's third parliament (Nov 12, 1554-Jan 16, 1555)

So sess.3 is a third session in her first regnal year, but not a third session of her first parliament. This section has to be reworded carefully. (Personally, I'd advise against using that particular example, since it can be confusing to readers). Walrasiad (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

P.S. - I'd also avoid referring to c.1 as "first act passed". It may or may not be. Ordering by which chapters are listed on the rolls is typically the order of royal assent, not when it actually passed the floor. Monarchs frequently delayed assent of an earlier act until a later one was passed - indeed many monarchs often withheld assent of everything until the very last day of the session, then assented all at once, so ordering may not be significant. (Indeed, complicating matters, until 1793, dates of royal assent were not even recorded; unless otherwise specified, all acts were presumed in force from the start date of the session - which often meant retroactively enforceable; it took the 1793 act of (33 George III c.13) to finally instruct clerks to record dates of royal assent, and make the acts come into being from that date). Walrasiad (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Abbreviations

may have fallen out of fav(o|ou)r but so has paying attention to any of this. When people need to deal with these, they'll usually be looking at something like a Rot. Vasc. Those invariably use English or Latin abbreviations that aren't always clear and should be listed (e.g. Edu. I. or Edv. I for Edward I). — LlywelynII 13:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 1 November 2025


The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus: Arguments were presented why both the current and proposed title are misleading. Neither of these, nor any alternative proposed titles were seen as good options by a majority of participants. That said, if some thought goes into workshopping, a new move request to a different title may succeed. Two participants proposed splitting the page into Regnal years of English monarchs and Regnal years of British monarchs. Since they advanced no arguments while several counter-arguments were advanced, there is consensus against splitting the article.(non-admin closure) Joe vom Titan (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Regnal years of English and British monarchs → Regnal years of English monarchs – This page was moved from "English monarchs" to the longer "English and British monarchs" title without discussion a couple of years ago. I understand the intention of the mover, but I believe it is unnecessarily longer, and adds confusion. In lists of "British kings", I expect to see at least Kings of Scotland listed, as well as Kings of Northumbria, Mercia, Gwynedd, etc. This page does not cover those. It only covers Kings of England since 1066 and their legal successors after 1707. Moreover, this is about de jure official dating citation used in English law (there is no such thing as "British law"). Thus, regnal years begin only in 1066, the English legal memory limit, and the dates are guaranteed only for citations in English law. The article does not pretend or guarantee to apply to citations in Scots Law, an entirely separate legal system. Given the article range means to apply only to English law, the title should refer to "English monarchs", and let the post-1707 arrangements be noted in the lede. Shorter, clearer and cleaner. Walrasiad (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 05:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Oppose I can see where the proposer is coming from but there have been no English monarchs for over three hundred years and changing the title would give a misleading, less clear, impression. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
A reminder this is a law article, not a political facts article. The dates are also very incorrect in de facto terms. I've had to revert attempts by editors to "correct" the dates to make them conform to facts. Facts don't matter. This is how English law (and only English law) dates legal and official matters. It doesn't matter whether an English king exists or not - there was no English king in 1649-60, yet English law (and this list) treats it as if there was. Legal continuity is not broken in 1707 or 1801. The "Kingdom of England" may have ceased to exist as a political entity in 1707, but "English law" doesn't, and an "English monarch" refers to the monarch used in English law citations. That's why I specifically avoided "Kings of England" in the original title, used the more flexible "English monarchs" - the sovereign monarchs according to English law. It doesn't matter what their actual titles might be, or whether they have power or not. It's a purely legal matter. If I was to write the same article for Scots Law citations, I would use "Regnal years of Scottish monarchs", and it would continue until today and not end in 1707. I would not clumsily title it "Scottish and British monarchs". While our political articles can have three separate lists for England, Scotland and United Kingdom, legal articles cannot, as English law and Scots law are not interrupted, but remain continuous and separate until today. There is no "regnal years of British monarchs" as "British law" does not exist. Walrasiad (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
To add, Sweet & Maxwell's guide pdf, which is the authoritative guide for law & statute citation dates used here, calls it "Regnal Years of English sovereigns" throughout. No mention of "British". Walrasiad (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Regnal years in English law? I agree that the current title implies more than what the article offers but I don't think "English monarchs" is clearer. Srnec (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Certainly better than current, but a bit obscure. "Regnal years of monarchs in English law" would be clearer. "Regnal years of English monarchs" would be more succinct and natural.
Maybe follow the example of Sweet & Maxwell and adopt "English sovereigns" instead of "English monarchs"? After all, this is about sovereignty or supreme juridical authority over the area of English law jurisdiction, i.e. England & Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland are entirely separate legal jurisdictions, and "Britain" is not a jurisdiction at all). Walrasiad (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
"Regnal years of monarchs in English law" is good. "Regnal years of English sovereigns" is also clearer to me than "Regnal years of English monarchs". Srnec (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Regnal years of monarchs in English law is clear. "Regnal years of English sovereigns" retains the problem. This is a general encyclopedia not a specialist document so the title needs to be clear for all. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose This silly argument always gets pushed every now and then. A better solution to this would be to WP:SPLIT the article into Regnal years of English monarchs and Regnal years of British monarchs as with List of English monarchs and List of British monarchs. ← Metallurgist (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
It can't be split. This is a reference article about the calendar used in English law citations It should not be missing entries. It should be in one place. The List of Roman consuls is also all in one place, despite many political changes, because consular years is the calendar of reference for Roman citations. Walrasiad (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject English Royalty, WikiProject European history, and WikiProject British Royalty have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 05:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Split into two pages, one for the English & the other for the British. GoodDay (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I oppose a split because no source splits regnal years like that and Anne's reign is not split into two series of legal regnal years. It is one continuous English legal period. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
    • I agree that the article cannot be split, but that's why a clearer title is needed. Srnec (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I oppose a split as well. It's not logical to have the article broken down especially when most sources would cover these dates in a continuous manner. As it was stated, nobody breaks Anne's reign into two halves. Keivan.fTalk 01:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.