Jump to content

Talk:List of shortest-reigning monarchs

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

'King Edward the Confessor'

[edit]

It says that he reigned from October - December 1066 when the battle of Hastings was in October and William became king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.69.196 (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say this? I don't see it on this page. King E the C had quite a long reign, from 1042 to 1066. OldSpot61 (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i meant Edgar the Atheling. It says he was King of England October - December 1066, when William the Conquer invaded in October and reigned for quite a few years after. Edgar was never crowned, but was proclaimed King. [unsigned]
That's correct. Edgar the Atheling is in the list. Yes, Edgar was proclaimed King by the Witan but wasn't crowned.OldSpot61 (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please could you sign your contributions - thanks.OldSpot61 (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable entries

[edit]

Pope John Paul I... monarch? [unsigned]

Historians don't recognize some of these brief Kings. This article needs some cleaning up. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Yeah , I agree and so should the Thailand article of the same category —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.152.79 (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Less than a week'?

[edit]

--User:Brenont (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC

Hate to point out the obvious, but Lady Jane Grey, as the page says, reigned for nine days... which is not 'less than a week'. Zimri of Israel had a shorter reign, but manages to make it to 'less than a month'. 86.152.90.113 (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually, she was listed under both headings (it was just added to 'Less than a week' by someone a couple of hours ago). I've removed it from the incorrect section now. If you see an error like this in future, just click "edit this page" and you can fix it yourself.--Pharos (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, rather more pertinently, she isn't acknowledged as ever having been queen, merely a failed coup puppet figurehead. Anyone can be proclaimed monarch; it is whether it sticks that counts (and Jane didn't, either at the time or historically). Cliff (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Less than a year'

[edit]

Under 'less than a year' does this Nepalese king merit? - "The shortest serving Rana was Deva Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana who ruled for two months in 1901." See Rana dynasty.

The Ranas were hereditary prime ministers, not kings. OldSpot61 (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter III of Russia reigned six month and four days, in 1762. Not listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.103.214 (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is now! Cebr1979 (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncrowned 'monarchs'

[edit]

I think uncrowned monarchs should be ruled out, or at least those that were both uncrowned and never proclaimed monarchs. For example, Luís Filipe of Portugal died 20 minutes after his father, King Carlos; dying as he was, it's pretty sure he was never proclaimed (much less crowned) king, so why count him? (No Portuguese historian does.) Plus, why call him 'Luís Filipe I'? He was never crowned, so we cannot know which name he would officially choose. He could have chosen just Luís, which would make him Luís II and not Luís Filipe I. Gazilion (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncrowned is not the same as not proclaimed, the former is quite broad, including e.g. Edward V of England and Edward VIII of the United Kingdom. This could be anglocentric since not all countries have a coronation.

The inclusion of Matilda in this list raises some problems. At what point does a claimant to the throne become a de facto ruler for the purposes of this article (or any other purpose)? You have all sorts of cases of pretenders who were the de facto ruler of a small territory for a short time e.g. Perkin Warbeck. Should it be control of the capital? If so, you could include the False Dimitry I. What about the Old Pretender, who was de facto ruler of limited areas in Scotland for short periods in 1715 and 1745-46? PatGallacher (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gazilion, I cannot see any good reason for including Prince Luís Filipe of Portugal on this list if there was not automatic succession and he was not proclaimed King of Portugal. This is similar to the Belgian Monarchy, where the heir does not become monarch upon the death of the previous monarch. They first must take a constitutional oath. Therefore, King Albert II did not become King on 31 July 1993 when King Baudouin I died, but on 9 August when he took the oath. York1066 (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date

[edit]

This list should be in order by date, from earliest to the most present. 207.233.71.96 (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The supposed 'Louis XIX' & 'Henry V' of France

[edit]

Historians don't recognize these guys as 'Kings of France'. They should be deleted from this article. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they should have the cited information "Historians don't recognize these guys as 'Kings of France'. "? Otherwise someone coming here

looking for one of them might assume by their absence they lasted over a year. Rich Farmbrough, 18:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Actually Historians DO recognize them and Phillipe VII, who lasted a couple of days in 1848.Ericl (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince An

[edit]

Prince An apparently was ruler "for a year". Sufficiently vague that he may qualify for this page. Rich Farmbrough, 18:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

He is there under "Emperor Hồ Quý Ly."Cebr1979 (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popes

[edit]

While they are sort of monarchs, they have always been elected, never inheriting the position (unless you count some of the pornographic Tusculans from the 9th and 10th centuries). If we're going to include them, we should include the following:

Steven (II) (c. 830) 3 days Urban VII (15 September – 27 September 1590): 13 days (died before consecration) Boniface VI (April, 896): 16 days Celestine IV (25 October – 10 November 1241): 17 days (died before consecration) Theodore II (December 897): 20 days Sisinnius (15 January – 4 February 708): 21 days Marcellus II (9 April – 1 May 1555): 22 days Damasus II (17 July – 9 August 1048): 24 days Pius III (22 September – 18 October 1503): 27 days Leo XI (1 April – 27 April 1605): 27 days Benedict V (22 May – 23 June 964): 33 days John Paul I (26 August – 28 September 1978): 34 days.

I removed John Paul I, As it should be either all or nothing. Ericl (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are other monarchs on the list who have been elected as well. There has been elective monarchies, you know.
Andejons (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imam of Yemen

[edit]

This list does not include Imam Muhammad al-Badr of (North) Yemen, who ruled for at most eight days (not sure exactly how many) after the death of his father Ahmad in September of 1962, before he was deposed by a military coup. He did continue to claim the throne and fought for several years to try to reclaim it, so perhaps this does not count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.55.139 (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protest against Wikifying tables

[edit]

Sure, it keeps everything standard, but a lot of the links turned red in the process. We should turn them back. --LutherVinci (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"legitimacy"

[edit]

As legitimacy has a distinct meaning, particularly relevant in hereditary succession of monarchs, I'd rather see some other word such as validity or genuineness. (The legitimacy of Elizabeth I of England was disputed in her lifetime, but no one denies that she reigned.) —Tamfang (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Emperors

[edit]

More Roman Emperors should be added, when we exclude usurpers, who ruled sole province like Uranius Antoninus (Syria, 253/4) we still hqve plenty of short-term rulers like Pertinax, Didius Julianus (both 193), Pupienus, Balbinus (both 238, what about Gordians I & II?), Tacitus (275/6), Florian (276), Carus (282/3), Severus II (306/7) - that list is not complete. What about co-ruled heirs like Calpurnius Piso (adopted son of Galba, 69) or Hostilian (son of Trebonianius Gallus, 251)? What about chimeric rulers of West Empire's end like Olbyrius (472) and last of them - Romulus Augustulus (475/6)? 95.51.201.218 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Order should show shortest-reigning first

[edit]

This is a "List of shortest-reigning monarchs". For many/most readers, they'd come here to find out who was THE world-record holder, the shortest-reigning monarch in world history. But he's right at the bottom of the page, because the list gives priority to longer-reigning monarchs and gets progressively shorter. That seems a very odd and unintuitive way of organising a list such as this. It should start with the shortest-reigning and get progressively longer. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 02:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Jack said. —Tamfang (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of you (although it would be a very time-consuming project for someone to undertake).Cebr1979 (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And? Any WP article worth its salt shows evidence of effort and time expended. We have a consensus to change it. If you're saying that you, personally, can't be bothered, that's fine; let someone else do it. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are we just talking about moving the sections of the article around? (Like copy-pasting?) What would be "very time-consuming"? —TeragR disc./con. 16:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

King Ansprand of Italy and King Reccared II of Spain

[edit]

Two kings should be added : Ansprand, king of the Lombards, ruled in Italy for three months (712). Reccared II, king of the Visigoths, ruled in Spain around one month (621).92.90.23.29 (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC) 1 was already there but, I added the other.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of shortest-reigning monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Obscure monarchs thought to have reigned less than a year" section

[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure about this section: <https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_shortest-reigning_monarchs&oldid=935581139#Obscure_monarchs_thought_to_have_reigned_less_than_a_year>. Is this original research? Who's considered obscure? &c. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This section is nonsense. There is no criteria to define what is an "obscure monarch", in this article or elsewhere.--Menah the Great (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King Chang of Goryeo

[edit]

The notes are unclear. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Haitham bin Tariq Al Said

[edit]

Needs 'moving up.'

Given the (small) number of 'presently reigning monarchs' who will repeatedly move up the tables (with resultant potential for dislocation) what is the best means of inclusion? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a suggestion - under normal conditions 'reigning monarchs' get put at the top of the 'Less than a week/month/year' sections: this will involve less work and decrease the potential for scrambled tables (easily done). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

emperor kobun

[edit]

where is emperor kobun he only ruled for 8 month's before getting defeated by his unlce emperor tenmu. his committed suicide by drowning his body was later found. William the enderman6713 (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added, though I don't get why the Emperor Kobun article has him as emperor while his father was still alive.--Menah the Great (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Cromwell

[edit]

Richard Cromwell was Lord Protector of the Commonwealth for 9 months. Though the Commonwealth is usually regarded as a Republic (and considered itself to be), the first LP, Oliver Cromwell was made ruler for life, with the treatment of Highness, and the power to name his successor at will, who would enjoy the same powers as himself; he chose his son Richard for no reason I can see but the fact he was his son. In my opinion they are just as much monarchs as Napoleon or the Roman emperors but... are published historians of the same opinion?--Menah the Great (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

missing 3 rulers

[edit]

this list is missing 3 rulers and are the following shown

Richard Cromwell who ruled for 247 days from 1658-1659 before he abdicated Ælfweard who ruled for 18 days in 924 before dieing of an illness Saul Wahl who ruled for 20 hours in 1587 Tanmeo4hh (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cromwell was not a monarch. Wahl's reign is disputed. Dimadick (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wahl is not merely disputed (he'd fit if that was the case). He's a legend.Menah the Great (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Cromwell is included in List of English monarchs.--Menah the Great (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ælfwynn

[edit]

She only reigned for 6 months. Nwoomerkos (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Albert III, Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst ?

[edit]

How sure are we about the dates for Albert III, Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst? Apart from this article, I see no mentioning of the date 19 June 1359 anywhere on Wikipedia in any language in regardence to this Albert III (nor in a Google search for that matter). Is there a reliable source for this date? Even the noted date of death 1 August 1359 seem to be an approximate date. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure mabey we should put him on the last list Nwoomerkos (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That might be the Best solution for now. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

Please add the following monarchs to the list. Peter Ormond 💬 17:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason to remove the Dynasty box from the first batch?

[edit]

--Menah the Great (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis V

[edit]

Why was he removed for no reason 103.137.24.131 (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indra Bhattaraka

[edit]

He only reigned for a week after his father died but abdicated in favour of his son Why isn't he here? 103.137.24.196 (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.137.24.42 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need Charles III on this list?

[edit]

It's just natural that he's been reigning for only a few days (at the time of this comment) since his mother just died. I feel his inclusion here at this point in time is redundant, and he should only be included in the event that he dies or abdicates before he has reigned for a year or less. Yekshemesh (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. I tend to think that removing him permanently would probably require us to lock the page, that the problem will solve itself over the next twelve months, and that a sizeable contingent of people looking at this page at the moment will be doing so because they want to know who has had a shorter reign than him. It's a bit silly, but not actively harmful or misleading. Furius (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is really a list of monarchs whose reigns ended quickly. Charles and Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahayan are currently reigning and there is no reason to think they'll die or be deposed within a year. Remove them from the list and by all means add them back if their reigns end before a year is done. 208.98.223.81 (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_shortest-reigning_monarchs&oldid=1210362302"