Talk:List of Monarchs of England and Scotland

It occurs to me that the name of this page is misleading, since all of the monarchs herein listed were monarchs of both England and Scotland. Perhaps it should be renamed something like List of Monarchs of England and Scotland? Nik 09:37, 27 December 2005 (PST)

I agree. Zahir 09:43, 27 December 2005 (PST)

Of course, we may have to translate the names into Brethanach, Scots and Goelig (or maybe even Seimi). --Sikulu 06:33, 17 February 2006 (PST)

Victoria's House

*Here*, Victoria remained a member of the House of Hannover, though her descendants were of the House of Sax-Coburg-Gotha (later renamed Windsor). Following the same pattern, *there*'s Victoria would remain of the House of Stuart Nik 10:06, 27 December 2005 (PST)

Makes sense to me, but I remember reading it as QSS that Victoria was declared the first of the Second House of Plantagenet in the Parliamentary Acts that forced her parents' abdication and severed the succession. But maybe Bo or someone can tell me I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Won't be the last. Zahir 14:27, 27 December 2005 (PST)

Could be. I don't remember that QSS, but I'm hardly infallible either :-) There's no reason I can see that she couldn't've been proclaimed the Second House of Plantagenet. Nik 21:35, 27 December 2005 (PST)

Cromwell?

Did Cromwell not exist *there*, or did he merely, for whatever reason, fail in his attempts to overthrow the monarchy? If so, what prevented his success (or, for that matter, prevented someone else from doing the same thing) Nik 15:15, 3 January 2006 (PST)

He existed in Kemr. His name was Oliweir Gwilelm and he lived during the reign of Donal II. Zahir 15:17, 3 January 2006 (PST)

I stole him for Kemr as the family were originally Williams from Wales and changed their name after one of them married Thomas Cromwell's sister and kept the matrilineal name. Oliweir Gwilelm is the same generation as Oliver Cromwell, but has slightly different ancestry as the family never moved to Anglia.

My own speculation is that instead of the Commonwealth, England went through a nasty period of religious strife between the Catholic establishment and the dissenting Protestant minority. No details of this period have been established. - AndrewSmith 19:40, 3 January 2006 (PST).

Commonwealth?

An idea I had was that maybe something similar to the Commonwealth did happen, but only in England. Charles I fled to Scotland, which enjoyed protection from invasion by Kemr, thus for part of his reign he was king only of Scotland (though he would've retained the title "King of England"). Eventually, either Charles I or his son Charles II would've returned to England. Thoughts? Nik 23:26, 3 January 2006 (PST)

For what it is worth, I agree this would be a good idea. Zahir 07:13, 17 February 2006 (PST)

House of Lancaster

Given the fact that what is the Duchy of Lancaster *here*, is so much smaller (and probably less significant) *there*, what would happen to the Lancastrian Kings from the Wars of the Roses (i.e. Henry IV, V and VI). Would Cumbria be a County Palatinate instead, or would the House of Lancaster just be a supporter of an analouge house *there*? --Sikulu 07:58, 26 April 2006 (PDT)

I have posited in my proposal for Richard III of England that the House of Lancaster in IB was instead known as the House of Kent, because John of Gaunt was the Duke of Kent. The only other major change I suggested was that the Kent Rose be gold instead of red. Zahir 08:24, 26 April 2006 (PDT)

There's a tickle in my brain that it's been said there _was_ no War of the Roses...Padraic? BoArthur 10:52, 26 April 2006 (PDT)

If there was no Wars of the Roses, then I am eager to hear the bizarre set of circumstances that put Richard III on the throne! Zahir 11:41, 26 April 2006 (PDT)

Ordinals

*Here*'s Britain doesn't use I for monarchs who are the only one of their name, hence Queen Victoria, and not Queen Victoria I. Is it different *there*? If not, then Constantine I, Victoria I, Albert I, Elizabeth I, and Diana I should all drop their ordinals Christina 01:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Victoria

In *here*'s Britain, sons take precedence over daughters, regardless of age. I find it unlikely that it would differ *there*, especially as far back as the early 19th century! Surely Gereint XI would've been King of England and Scotland until his death? Christina 01:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed, under Elizabeth I of England and Scotland, it says: Shortly after Albert's birth, the parliaments of England and Scotland passed laws granting equal succession rights to sons and daughters. so in Victoria's time, she definitely would've been second in line after her younger brother. So, it seems to me that Gereint XI should be added to the list of Monarchs of England and Scotland between Constantine and Victoria (what is the English equivalent of Gereint)? Christina 02:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If memory serves, Victoria's ascension to the throne was the result of a specific treaty/Act passed by the English, Scottish and Kemrese Parliaments in response to her parents' marriage. As such it was a unique situation. Zahir 05:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so there was a clause to prevent a permanent personal union between Kemr and England/Scotland? Christina 07:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Essentially. Zahir 15:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It'd be interesting to figure out what the clause said, specifically, and how it was determined that Gereint would take Kemr and Victoria England/Scotland, rather than vice versa (or does Kemr have Salic law excluding Victoria from their throne?) Christina 11:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Kemr does indeed have Salic law. Zahir 19:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Still, the treaty would've had to account for any possible child situation, such as two sons no daughter or just one son. Christina 05:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)