Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Monarchs of the United Kingdom by previous title

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monarchs of the United Kingdom by previous title

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant information already listed in respective monarch's article. It is mainly a trivia article. Contested proposed deletion, though no reason was provided for the objection to the deletion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has an interesting history, and it seemed to have been created as an analogue of List of Presidents of the United States by occupation, and there is another for List of Presidents of the United States by other offices held. If that was the thinking, it shows a lack of understanding of the nature and purposes of royal titles in modern times. True, only five of them had been Prince of Wales (Geo. IV should be included), but that is because the title is not awarded to the female heir or the brother of the monarch. We could compile lists by name (the regnal name is not necessarily the name they previously used), by residence, or various other categories, but it has no more significance than those. Trivia, and an unlikely search term. --AJHingston (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. The articles about American presidents are not comparable in that American presidents have a variety of paths to election, while this article is about a narrow set of titles received, sometimes automatically, via blood line.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The only useful content relates to the cases where a king inherited from his brother - William IV and George VI. George III similarly has the rather silly statement that he was King of GB. The 1801 Act of Union changed the consitutional relationship with Ireland, but changed the extent of the realms where he was king not a jot. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the PROD tag. Perhaps in the List of British monarchs page nots can be added to what the relevant monarch's title was at succession. In that case, this article would be redundant. Ohwrotcod (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons that some of us are dismissing this as trivia is that these things are not really given much significance, and those who want to know are much better off referring to the article page for that individual. Cluttering the List of British monarchs page would not add value - it is not an important part of their identity as monarch. A glance at the relevant page of the official website of the current Prince of Wales will show how unimportant these things are - he is PoW as a matter of custom because he is eldest son of the monarch and heir to the throne and other titles are not even listed out. His mother was Duchess of Edinburgh because her husband was created Duke of Edinburgh on their marriage; she was already heir to the throne and it didn't mean that she changed status except insofar as she was then married and started a family. --AJHingston (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.