Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
4,575
edits
Changes
no edit summary
*Yes, I understand. However this is an encyclopedia, and the category is assigned to make searching by users who might not be that well versed in history. Does that help further explain? :-) --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 20:36, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
*Yes, I understand. However this is an encyclopedia, and the category is assigned to make searching by users who might not be that well versed in history. Does that help further explain? :-) --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 20:36, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
11 June 2007 (EDT)
:: TK, I think AlanE is referring to the fact that Alfred the Great could not have been a UK Monarch, since the United Kingdom wasn't formed until ~900 years after his reign. He would fall under the "Anglo-Saxon Monarchs" category suggested above. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 20:03, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
Thank you, Colest. TK, this is not an opinion thing - it is a matter of historical accuracy. There is no encyclopedia or reference book I have ever read that has ever had a pre-Stuart monarch in the same context as "UK". It's like listing a seventeenth century colonial governor of one of the Thirteen States under "US Governors".
I recently added to the UK Monarchs page the kings and queens of England from 1066 to 1603. Might I suggest that that page be extended to include the Anglo-Saxon kings (there are three lines of them I think) and the Scottish monarchs. The page could be "British Royalty", with redirects going to it. It would have the lists with dates etc. I am willing to spend some time on this over the next few days. I do know my way around this subject. But it isn't about me. Its about the veracity of CP.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:47, 11 June 2007 (EDT)