document_title: Left–right political spectrum

question_text: what does right wing and left wing mean in politics

text: Left–right political spectrum

text: History of the terms[edit]

text: The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville, explained, "We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp." However, the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties. The contemporary press occasionally used the terms "left" and "right" to refer to the opposing sides.[6]

text: When the National Assembly was replaced in 1791 by a Legislative Assembly comprising entirely new members, the divisions continued. "Innovators" sat on the left, "moderates" gathered in the centre, while the "conscientious defenders of the constitution" found themselves sitting on the right, where the defenders of the Ancien Régime had previously gathered.[clarification needed] When the succeeding National Convention met in 1792, the seating arrangement continued, but following the coup d'état of 2 June 1793, and the arrest of the Girondins, the right side of the assembly was deserted, and any remaining members who had sat there moved to the centre. However, following the Thermidorian Reaction of 1794, the members of the far left were excluded, and the method of seating was abolished. The new constitution included rules for the assembly that would "break up the party groups."[7]

text: However, following the Restoration in 1814–1815, political clubs were again formed. The majority ultraroyalists chose to sit on the right. The "constitutionals" sat in the centre while independents sat on the left. The terms extreme right and extreme left, as well as centre-right and centre-left, came to be used to describe the nuances of ideology of different sections of the assembly.[8]

text: The terms "left" and "right" were not used to refer to political ideology per se, but only to seating in the legislature. After 1848, the main opposing camps were the "democratic socialists" and the "reactionaries" who used red and white flags to identify their party affiliation.[9]

text: With the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871, the terms were adopted by political parties: the Republican Left, the Centre Right, and the Centre Left (1871) and the Extreme Left (1876) and Radical Left (1881). The beliefs of the group called the Radical Left were actually closer to the Centre Left than the beliefs of those called the Extreme Left.[10]

text: Beginning in the early twentieth century the terms Left and Right came to be associated with specific political ideologies and were used to describe citizens' political beliefs, gradually replacing the terms "reds" and "the reaction". Those on the Left often called themselves "republicans", while those on the Right often called themselves "conservatives". The words Left and Right were at first used by their opponents as slurs. By 1914 the left half of the legislature in France was composed of Unified Socialists, Republican Socialists and Socialist Radicals, while the parties that were called "Left" now sat on the right side. The use of the words Left and Right spread from France to other countries, and came to be applied to a large number of political parties worldwide, which often differed in their political beliefs.[11]

text: There was asymmetry in the use of the terms Left and Right by the opposing sides. The Right mostly denied that the left–right spectrum was meaningful because they saw it as artificial and damaging to unity. The Left, however, seeking to change society, promoted the distinction. As Alain observed in 1931, "When people ask me if the division between parties of the Right and parties of the Left, men of the Right and men of the Left, still makes sense, the first thing that comes to mind is that the person asking the question is certainly not a man of the Left."[12]

text: In British politics the terms 'Right' and 'Left' came into common use for the first time in the late 1930s in debates over the Spanish Civil War.[13]

text: The Scottish sociologist Robert M. MacIver noted in The Web of Government (1947):

text: The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the centre that of the middle classes. Historically this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged. Defense and attack have met, under democratic conditions, not in the name of class but in the name of principle; but the opposing principles have broadly corresponded to the interests of the different classes.[14]

text: Ideological groupings across the spectrum[edit]

text: Generally, the left wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform, and internationalism," while the right wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism."[15]

text: Political scientists and other analysts regard the Left as including anarchists,[16][17] communists, socialists and social democrats,[18] left-libertarians, progressives, and social liberals.[19][20] Movements for racial equality are also usually linked with left-wing organizations.[21] Trade unionism is also associated with the left.[22]

text: Political scientists and other analysts regard the Right as including Christian democrats, conservatives, right-libertarians,[23] neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists,[24] fascists,[25] reactionaries, and traditionalists.

text: A number of significant political movements—including feminism and regionalism—do not fit precisely into the left-right spectrum.[26] Nationalism is often regarded as characteristic of the right, although nationalism is also sometimes present in the left.[27] Populism is regarded as having both left-wing and right-wing manifestations (see left-wing populism, right-wing populism).[28] Green politics is often regarded as a movement of the left, but in some ways the green movement is difficult to definitively categorize as left or right.[29]

text: Political parties in the political spectrum[edit]

text: Political scientists have observed that the ideologies of political parties can be mapped along a single left–right axis.[30] Klaus von Beyme categorized European parties into nine families, which described most parties. He was able to arrange seven of them from left to right: communist, socialist, green, liberal, Christian democratic, conservative and right-wing extremist. The position of agrarian and regional/ethnic parties varied.[31] A study conducted in the late 1980s on two bases, positions on ownership of the means of production and positions on social issues, confirmed this arrangement.[32]

text: There has been a tendency for party ideologies to persist, and values and views that were present at a party's founding have survived. However they have also adapted for pragmatic reasons, making them appear more similar.[33] Lipset and Rokkan observed that modern party systems are the product of social conflicts played out in the last few centuries.[34] They said that lines of cleavage had become 'frozen'.[35]

text: The first modern political parties were liberals, organized by the middle class in the 19th century to protect them against the aristocracy. They were major political parties in that century but declined in the twentieth century as first the working class came to support socialist parties and economic and social change eroded their middle class base.[36] Conservative parties arose in opposition to liberals in order to defend aristocratic privilege. But in order to attract voters they became less doctrinaire than liberals. However they were unsuccessful in most countries and generally have been able to achieve power only through cooperation with other parties.[37]

text: Socialist parties were organized in order to achieve political rights for workers and were originally allied with liberals. However they broke with the liberals when they sought worker control of the means of production.[38] Christian democratic parties were organized by Catholics who saw liberalism as a threat to traditional values. Although established in the 19th century, they became a major political force following the Second World War.[39] Communist parties emerged following a division within socialism first on support of the First World War and then support of the Bolshevik Revolution.[40]

text: Right-wing extremist parties are harder to define, other than being more right-wing than other parties, but include fascists and some extreme conservative and nationalist parties.[41]

text: Green parties were the most recent of the major party groups to develop. They have mostly rejected socialism and are very liberal on social issues.[42]

text: These categories can be applied to many parties outside Europe.[43] Ware (1996) asserted that in the United States both major parties were liberal[clarification needed], even though there are left–right policy differences between them.[44]

text: Usage in Western Europe[edit]

text: In the 2001 book The government and politics of France, Knapp and Wright say that the main factor dividing the left and right wings in Western Europe is class. The Left seeks social justice through redistributive social and economic policies, while the Right defends private property and capitalism. The nature of the conflict depends on existing social and political cleavages and on the level of economic development.[45] Left-wing values include the belief in the power of human reason to achieve progress for the benefit of the human race, secularism, sovereignty exercised through the legislature, social justice, and mistrust of strong personal political leadership. To the Right, this is regularly seen as anti-clericalism, unrealistic social reform, doctrinaire socialism and class hatred. The Right are skeptical about the capacity for radical reforms to achieve human well-being while maintaining workplace competition. They believe in the established church both in itself and as an instrument of social cohesion, and believe in the need for strong political leadership to minimize social and political divisions. To the Left, this is seen as a selfish and reactionary opposition to social justice, a wish to impose doctrinaire religion on the population, and a tendency to authoritarianism and repression.[46][47]

text: The differences between left and right have altered over time. The initial cleavage at the time of the French Revolution was between supporters of absolute monarchy (the Right) and those who wished to limit the king's authority (the Left). During the 19th century the cleavage was between monarchists and republicans. Following the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871, the cleavage was between supporters of a strong executive on the Right and supporters of the primacy of the legislature on the Left.[48]

text: Contemporary usage in the United States[edit]

text: The terms left-wing and right-wing are widely used in the United States but, as on the global level, there is no firm consensus about their meaning. The only aspect that is generally agreed upon is that they are the defining opposites of the United States political spectrum. Left and right in the U.S. are generally associated with liberal and conservative respectively, although the meanings of the two sets of terms do not entirely coincide. Depending on the political affiliation of the individual using them, these terms can be spoken with varying implications. A 2005 poll of 2,209 American adults showed that "respondents generally viewed the paired concepts liberals and left-wingers and conservatives and right-wingers as possessing, respectively, generally similar political beliefs", but also showed that around ten percent fewer respondents understood the terms left and right than understood the terms liberal and conservative.[49]

text: The contemporary Left in the United States is usually understood as a category that includes New Deal social-liberals (in contrast to traditions of social democracy more common to Western Europe), Rawlsian liberals, and civil libertarians, who are often identified with the Democratic Party. In general, the term left-wing is understood to imply a commitment to egalitarianism, support for social policies that appeal to the working class, and multiculturalism. The contemporary center-left usually defines itself as promoting government regulation of business, commerce and industry; protection of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion; and government intervention on behalf of racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities and the working class.[50]

text: The contemporary Right in the United States is usually understood as a category that includes social conservatives, Christian conservatives, free market liberals, and economic libertarians who are often identified with the Republican Party. In general, the term right-wing is understood to imply a commitment to conservative Christian values, support for a free-market economic system, support for a strong national defense, and support for traditional family values. The contemporary center-right usually defines itself as promoting deregulation of banking, commerce, and industry.[51]

text: Relevance of the terms today[edit]

text: Some political scientists have suggested that the classifications of "left" and "right" are no longer meaningful in the modern complex world. Although these terms continue to be used, they advocate a more complex spectrum that attempts to combine political, economic and social dimensions.[52]

text: However, a survey conducted between 1983 and 1994 by Bob Altemeyer of Canadian legislative caucuses showed an 82% correlation between party affiliation and score on a scale for right-wing authoritarianism when comparing right-wing and social democratic caucuses. There was a wide gap between the scores of the two groups, which was filled by liberal caucuses. His survey of American legislative caucuses showed scores by American Republicans and Democrats were similar to the Canadian Right and liberals, with a 44% correlation between party affiliation and score.[53]

text: Norberto Bobbio saw the polarization of the Italian Chamber of Deputies in the 1990s as evidence that the linear left–right axis remained valid. He thought that the argument that the spectrum had disappeared occurred when either the Left or Right were weak. The dominant side would claim that its ideology was the only possible one, while the weaker side would minimize its differences. He saw the Left and Right not in absolute terms, but as relative concepts that would vary over time. In his view, the left–right axis could be applied to any time period.[54]

text: Libertarian writer David Boaz argued that terms left and right are used to spin a particular point of view rather than as simple descriptors, with those on the "left" typically emphasizing their support for working people and accusing the right of supporting the interests of the upper class, and those on the "right" usually emphasizing their support for individualism and accusing the Left of supporting collectivism. Boaz asserts that arguments about the way the words should be used often displaces arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against a preconceived notion of what the terms mean.[55]

text: In 2006 British Prime Minister Tony Blair described the main cleavage in politics as not left versus right but open versus closed.[56] In this model, attitudes towards social issues and globalism are more important than the conventional economic left–right issues: "open" voters tend to be socially liberal, multicultural and in favour of globalism, while "closed" voters are culturally conservative, opposed to immigration, and in favour of protectionism. This model has seen increased support following the rise of populist and centrist parties in the 2010s.[57][58]


document_title: Zach Tyler Eisen

question_text: the voice of aang in avatar the last airbender

root

text: Zach Tyler Eisen

text:
Zach Tyler EisenBorn
Zachary Tyler Eisen[1] (1993-09-25) September 25, 1993 (age 25)Stamford, Connecticut, U.S.[1]Education
Syracuse University[2]Years active
1996–2008[2]

tag: table

text: Zachary "Zach" Tyler Eisen (born September 25, 1993) is a former American voice actor best known for voicing Aang in the Nickelodeon animated series Avatar: The Last Airbender, Lucas Nickle in The Ant Bully, Andrew in Nick Jr.'s Little Bill and Pablo the Penguin in the Nick Jr. animated series The Backyardigans.[1] While living in Connecticut, he did most of his Avatar: The Last Airbender recordings via satellite.

tag: p

text: Filmography[edit]

text:
Entropy (1999) - Lucas[1]
Little Bill (1999–2002) – Andrew[1]
Marci X (2003) - Boy
The Backyardigans – Pablo the Penguin[1] (2004–06)
Avatar: The Last Airbender (2005–08) - Aang[1]
The Ant Bully (2006) – Lucas Nickle[3][4]
Calling All Engines from Tomorrowland (2005) - Sailing Around the World (Season 1)

tag: ul


document_title: Howl's Moving Castle (film)

question_text: who is markl in howl's moving castle

question_tokens: who is markl in howl 's moving castle

text: Howl's Moving Castle (film)

text: Plot[edit]

text: Sophie, a young milliner, encounters a wizard named Howl on her way to visit her sister Lettie. Upon returning home, she meets the Witch of the Waste, who transforms her into a ninety-year-old woman. Seeking to break the curse, Sophie leaves home and sets off through the countryside; she meets a living scarecrow, whom she decides to call 'Turnip Head'. He leads her to Howl's moving castle, where she meets Howl's young apprentice Markl, and the fire-demon Calcifer, who is the source of the castle's magic. When Howl appears, Sophie announces that she has hired herself as a cleaning lady.

text: Meanwhile, Sophie's nation is caught up in a war with a neighboring kingdom, who is searching for their missing prince. The King summons Howl to fight in the war; however, Howl decides to send Sophie to the King (under the pretense of being his mother) to tell him that Howl is too much of a coward to fight. Before leaving, he gives Sophie a charmed ring that connects her to Calcifer. Sophie meets Suliman, the king's advisor, and also the Witch of the Waste, whom Suliman punishes by draining all of her power, causing her to regress into a harmless old woman. Suliman warns that Howl will meet the same fate if he does not fight. Howl arrives to rescue Sophie; Suliman tries to trap him, but with Sophie's help, they escape along with the former witch.

text: Sophie learns that Howl's life is somehow bound to Calcifer's, and that Howl has been transforming into a bird-like creature to interfere with both sides in the war, but each transformation makes it more difficult for him to return to human form. Howl then has the castle magically-linked to Sophie's home, parking the castle itself on the town's outskirts. A few days later, the town is bombed by enemy aircraft and Suliman's henchmen attack the abode. Howl heads out to protect the group; Sophie then moves everyone out of the abode and removes Calcifer from the fireplace, which collapses the castle. The witch realizes that Calcifer has Howl's heart, and grabs the fire demon; Sophie panics and pours water onto the witch, which douses Calcifer. The castle then splits in two; Sophie falls down a chasm and is separated from the group.

text: Following the charmed ring, Sophie wanders into a scene from the past: she sees a young Howl catch a falling star — Calcifer — and give him his heart. Sophie calls for them to find her in the future as she is teleported away. She returns to the present and finds Howl, and they reunite with the others. The witch returns Howl's heart, and Sophie places it back inside Howl, reviving him and freeing Calcifer, though he decides to stay. Sophie's curse is broken, and after she kisses Turnip Head on the cheek he reverts to human form — revealed to be the missing prince Justin from the enemy kingdom, who promptly heads for home. Suliman, watching through a crystal globe, decides to end the war. As the bombers fly away, Sophie, Howl and the others travel high in the air in a new flying castle.

text: Voice cast[edit]

text:
Character

Japanese

English (Disney Release)

Sophie (Sofî) (old)[2]
Chieko Baisho
Jean Simmons

Sophie (young)[2]
Emily Mortimer

Howl (Hauru)[2]
Takuya Kimura
Christian Bale

Witch of the Waste (Arechi No Majo)[2]
Akihiro Miwa
Lauren Bacall

Calcifer (Karushifā)
Tatsuya Gashūin[2]
Billy Crystal

Markl (Marukuru)
Ryūnosuke Kamiki[2]
Josh Hutcherson

Madame Suliman (Sariman)[2]
Haruko Kato
Blythe Danner

Lettie
Yayoi Kazuki
Jena Malone[8]

Honey
Mayuno Yasokawa
Mari Devon

Prince Justin/Turnip Head (Kakashi No Kabu)
Yō Ōizumi[2]
Crispin Freeman[8]

Madge
Rio Kanno
Liliana Mumy

King of Ingary (Kokuō)
Akio Ōtsuka[2]
Mark Silverman

Hin[2]

Daijirō Harada

text: Themes[edit]

text: Pacifism[edit]

text: Howl's Moving Castle contains strong anti-war themes, influenced by Miyazaki's distaste for the 2003 Iraq War.[5][9][10] When he received an Oscar for Spirited Away, he said that he "had a great deal of rage about [the war]. So [he] felt some hesitation about the award."[5] Miyazaki identifies as a pacifist.[9][10][11] On the eve of the Iraq War, Miyazaki decided to make a film that he felt would be poorly received in the United States. Despite the film's success in that country, literary scholar Dani Cavallaro stated that Miyazaki was able to "create a film which ought, in principle, to have caused a certain unease among American audiences."[5] In the movie, Madame Suliman appears to have only sadistic motivations for creating conflict,[5] and despite being omniscient, is unable to recognize the idiocy of the war until the very end of the story. This reflects Miyazaki's desire to show real-world conflicts as also being somewhat arbitrary and fueled by the desires of capricious people.[12] Cavallaro stated that the depiction of the war carried "an unmistakable bitter taste."[5]

text: The universe of Howl's Moving Castle is depicted as not having clear-cut villains and heroes; instead, the characters are complex, and even those that are initially portrayed in a negative light, such as Howl, are shown as capable of change.[13] Matt Kimmich has stated, however, that the simplistic message of the film is that "war is bad."[11] A scene where Sophie is standing in a beautiful field of flowers is interrupted by a war machine, "a finger accusing empire as the destroyer of peace."[14] This portrayal is in strong contrast to other Miyazaki films like Princess Mononoke, which criticizes military conflict in a more nuanced manner.[11] Andrew Osmond stated that "Howl's pure-hearted anti-war stance is presented as nihilism with no alternative as he fights forces from each side and becomes the worst terror of all," in the form of the monstrous bird. By transforming into the bird, Howl risks losing his own humanity; Calcifer comments at one point that he will soon not be able to return to human form.[11] In contrast, Ashitaka in Princess Mononoke fights the demonic sickness with which he is afflicted, and tries to negotiate a peace between the two sides.[11] Osmond states that both films also point out the limits of masculinity, as exemplified by Howl and Ashitaka.[11]

text: Flight and critique of modernity[edit]

text: Like several other Miyazaki films,[13] Howl's Moving Castle reflects the director's love of flying.[15] Sequences in the film include both several aircraft of inventive design, as well as Howl transforming into a bird.[15] Miyazaki examines flight as a theme most directly in the later film The Wind Rises.[15] Miyazaki stated that he was attracted to military aircraft as a child, but that he grew to detest them because of the destructive purpose for which they are created.[15] Thus Howl's Moving Castle contains images both of aircraft shown as harmless, and large military craft depicted as ugly and destructive.[15] Cavallaro writes that Miyazaki wants to "portray flight as an object of admiration and awe," but that he is not "[blind] to its abuse by unscrupulous strategists and rulers."[15]

text: The nuanced view of flight is part of Miyazaki's broader critique of modern society and technology. Margaret Talbot writes that in person, Miyazaki exhibits "a profound dissatisfaction with modern life,"[13] particularly with the effects of technology and a disconnection from nature.[13] Many of his films depict technological hubris as among the roots of evil.[16] The battleships which are seen moving over the landscape are depicted as "gleaming with modernity and parading righteousness,"[17] but are then shown to be highly destructive.[17] In contrast, the semi-organic castle demonstrates "Miyazaki’s Taoist presentation of industrialism needing to be aligned with nature" according to Carl and Garrath Wilson.[17] Antonio Lioi writes that Miyazaki often depicts beautiful scenes in contrast to those containing symbols of modernity, such as the scene where Sophie's reverie is interrupted by a war machine. This contrast is part of an ecological criticism of modernity, but Miyazaki also offers an alternative, in the form of beautiful natural scenery.[14]

text: Old age and compassion[edit]

text: Miyazaki stated that an attractive aspect of the story of Howl's Moving Castle was the relatively positive light it shed on growing old.[13] When Sophie becomes old as a result of the witch's spell, she also feels more able to speak her mind. According to Miyazaki, old women are only infrequently allowed to dominate the screen as in Howl's Moving Castle, which made it a risky concept.[13] Elizabeth Parsons stated that the film disrupts the stereotype of "aged unattractiveness," when the artificially aged Sophie manages to rescue two attractive men (who come to love her) and to unintentionally end the war in her country.[18] Sophie's actions are those usually associated with grandmothers, such as being kind and nurturing to those around her, and engaging in housework; however, these actions are depicted as being powerful and heroic.[18] Sophie is one of several strong female protagonists in Miyazaki's films.[14] According to Parsons, this gives the film a feminist aspect as well.[18] Additionally, even though Sophie manages to make her presence in the castle legitimate by claiming to be a cleaning lady, the film goes on to show that the housework is equitably distributed, strengthening its feminist aspect.[18]

text: In 2013, Miyazaki stated that Howl's Moving Castle was his favorite creation, and explained his choice by saying "I wanted to convey the message that life is worth living, and I don't think that's changed."[6] In the film, Sophie is shown to overcome extreme challenges by learning to put the well-being of those she cares about above her own self-interest, a quality which Miyazaki refers to as devotion.[6] Several of the protagonists in Miyazaki's films, such as Ashitaka and San in Princess Mononoke and Sheeta and Pazu in Castle in the Sky learn to survive by learning the same lesson.[6] Cavallaro states that Miyazaki spreads this moral through the entire film, to convey human beings' ability to be compassionate, such as when the scarecrow holds an umbrella over Sophie's head when it rains.[6] Over the course of the film, Howl, its most vain and selfish character, also learns to put others before himself.[18] When Madame Suliman returns the Witch of the Waste to her true form as a decrepit old woman, Sophie takes her in and cares for her, despite the witch being responsible for Sophie's curse, thus strongly demonstrating the idea of compassion.[18] The witch then nearly destroys Howl through her selfish behavior, but also helps save the castle at the end. Parsons writes that "In Miyazaki's balancing act, old women can be powerful and weak, positive and negative, nurturing and selfish, maligned and loved; in short, they can not be simply categorized or stereotyped, and they can not be dismissed as fantasy malefactors embodied by evil witches."[18] They are also given a lot of space in the film as active characters, something not commonly found in western movies.[18]

text: Production[edit]

text: In September 2001, Studio Ghibli announced the production of two films. The first would become The Cat Returns and the second was an adaptation of Diana Wynne Jones' novel, Howl's Moving Castle.[19] A rumor persists that Miyazaki had an idea to do Howl's Moving Castle during a visit to Strasbourg Christmas market.[19] Toshio Suzuki, who produced Howl's Moving Castle, stated that Miyazaki was inspired to make the film when he read Jones' novel, and was struck by the image of a castle moving around the countryside.[20] The novel does not explain how the castle moved, and Miyazaki was interested in figuring out how the castle might move, which led to the image of a castle on chicken legs.[13] The complex moving castle changes and rearranges itself several times throughout the movie in response to Howl's eccentricity and the various situations.[19] The basic structure of the castle consists of more than 80 elements including turrets, a wagging tongue, cogwheels and chicken legs, that were rendered as digital objects.[19]

text: Mamoru Hosoda of Toei Animation was originally selected to direct the film, but quit the project after Studio Ghibli's executives rejected many of his concept ideas.[21] The film was shelved until Miyazaki took over.[21] The project resumed with production in February 2003.[19] It was scheduled to be completed in the spring of 2004, and released in the summer of that year.[21]

text: Miyazaki went to Colmar and Riquewihr in Alsace, France, to study the architecture and the surroundings for the setting of the film.[19] Additional inspiration came from the concepts of future technology in Albert Robida's work.[19] Commentators have stated that Miyazaki's imagery was influenced by his fondness for the "illusion art" of 19th century Europe.[22] Suzuki stated that unlike many Western films, in which the imagery went "from the general [to] the specific,"[13] Miyazaki employed a uniquely Japanese approach, frequently beginning with a very specific image and moving from there.[13] However, Howl's Moving Castle, and Miyazaki films in general, have a focus on realistic imagery in a way that other anime films do not.[13]

text: The film was produced digitally, but the original backgrounds were drawn by hand and painted prior to being digitized, and the characters were also drawn by hand prior to scanning them into the computer.[19] The 1400 storyboard cuts for the film were completed on 16 January 2004.[23] On 25 June the in-between animation was completed and checking was completed on 26 June.[24] Studio Ghibli used digital technology to run many copies of the still portions of a scene, a process which avoids inconsistencies between various still frames, but can create an impression of artificiality. Therefore, the studio chose to manually retouch the digitally altered images, recreating the "feel" of a hand-drawn image.[25]

text: Like with the other Studio Ghibli movies, the film was co-produced with other companies, which were Tokuma Shoten, the Nippon Television Network, Dentsu, Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Mitsubishi and Toho.[26]

text: Comparisons between film and novel[edit]

text: The film has several differences from the novel, partly due to the different requirements of the two media. Diana Wynne Jones' novel has a very large cast of characters, and several plot threads that were too complex to be transferred into the film.[27] As a result, characters such as Sophie's second sister Martha are left out, as is the plot thread involving Markl (who is called Michael in the novel, and depicted as an adolescent, rather than as a young boy) courting her.[28] Jones discussed the film with Studio Ghibli representatives, but did not have any input or involvement in the production of the film. Miyazaki traveled to England in the summer of 2004 to give Jones a private viewing of the finished film. She has been quoted as saying "It's fantastic. No, I have no input—I write books, not films. Yes, it will be different from the book—in fact it's likely to be very different, but that's as it should be. It will still be a fantastic film."[29]

text: The novel depicts Howl's castle as a tall, dark and sinister wizard's tower, very different from the complex image in the film. The film's castle may be seen as a parody of the machines seen in the movie, driven both by steam-engines and by magic. In the film, it is a "rotund collage of chimneys, roofs, steam pipes, and other odd appendages, borne along on mechanized bird legs"[28] that is similar to Baba Yaga's hut in the popular fairy tale. It is vaguely organic, and almost depicted as a life-form.[28] Similarly, Calcifer is a demonic figure in the book, as compared to the "endearing" persona and image that he has in the film.[28] Both film and novel try to render fantastic elements as mundane and ordinary things. Although they are set in a fantasy universe, the characters are often shown performing routine tasks, like cooking breakfast or washing up, in contrast to the heroic actions typical of a fantasy universe.[30] In the novel, Jones disrupts the fantasy-world setting by including scenes in which the characters travel to the real-world Wales. The movie, however, avoids this digression, and maintains a constant setting.[31]

text: Miyazaki's biggest addition to the plot of the book was the use of the war as a large part of the plot. In the book, the war is only tangentially referred to; the king orders Howl to find the king's missing brother Justin, because Justin's military skills are needed for a forthcoming war.[32] Howl's frequent disappearances are because of his womanizing habits, which makes Sophie see him as a superficial and cowardly person.[32] In the film, however, Howl disappears from the scene in order to transform into a giant bird and disrupt the battle plans of both armies.[32]

text: The roles of several characters also differ between novel and film due to this plot change. The Witch of the Waste is the chief antagonist of the book, whereas in the film she is reduced by Madame Suliman's magic to an ultimately harmless old woman who evokes sympathy in the audience and in Sophie.[32] In contrast, the film conflates the novel's two characters of Mrs. Penstemmon and the wizard Suliman into Madame Suliman. Although Suliman comes closest to being a traditional villain in the film, she is shown as having ambiguous motivations, and reviewers have stated that the real villain is war itself.[32] Howl loses the "rakish" womanizing aspect that was a significant part of his character in the novel.[32] In contrast, Sophie becomes a more conventional figure in the film; she is less grumpy and outspoken, and demonstrates her love for Howl earlier and more explicitly.[32] The storyline in the novel of Sophie being a powerful sorceress in her own right is muted in the film, although she is still shown to have control over her curse.[7]

text: The thematic focus of the story also differs between the novel and the film. Reviewer Antonia Levi wrote that the experience of watching the film was similar to reading high quality fan fiction; although the characters and the setting were the same, the story was different.[7] Although in both cases the story begins with Sophie being a prisoner of her circumstances and of social norms, the challenges she faces are slightly different. Levi said that "Jones uses Sophie, Howl, and Calcifer in a fairytale format to tell a story about challenging class and gender expectations, Miyazaki uses the same characters to tell a story about personal loyalty, love, and war."[7]

text: Music[edit]

text: The score was composed and conducted by Joe Hisaishi, and performed by the New Japan Philharmonic.[33] The soundtrack CD was first released on 19 November 2004 by Tokuma Japan Communications. Hisaishi also composed and conducted a Howl's Moving Castle: Symphony Suite, an album published on 21 January 2004 which includes ten re-arranged pieces from the original soundtrack. He and Youmi Kimura also composed Howl's Moving Castle CD Maxi-Single, a CD single published on 27 October 2004 which includes the film's theme song, sung by Chieko Baisho (the Japanese voice actor for Sophie), its karaoke version, and a piano version of the film's main theme, "The Merry-Go-Round of Life".[34]

text: Release and reception[edit]

text: Box office[edit]

text: The film opened at the 61st Venice Film Festival in 2004,[4] and was released in Japan on 20 November 2004.[3] The film grossed $14.5 million in its first week of release in Japan alone.[13] The film was distributed in Japan by Toho, and made $190,000,000 in that country.[3] It was distributed internationally by various companies, and made approximately an additional $45,000,000 outside Japan, for a worldwide total of $235,184,110.[3] The film was later dubbed into English by Pixar's Pete Docter.[35] It was distributed in the United States by Buena Vista, a subsidiary of Disney.[3] It was released on DVD on 10 March 2006.[8] It was one of the most commercially successful Japanese films ever made.[4] Soon after its release, it became the third most financially successful film in Japan, behind Titanic and Spirited Away.[16] GKIDS re-released the film on Blu-ray and DVD on 17 October 2017.[36]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reports an 87% approval rating based on 175 reviews, with an average rating of 7.5/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "Exquisitely illustrated by master animator Miyazaki, Howl's Moving Castle will delight children with its fantastical story and touch the hearts and minds of older viewers as well."[8] The film also holds an 80/100 average on Metacritic, based on 40 reviews, indicating "generally favorable reviews".[2]

text: USA Today critic Claudia Puig gave the film a positive review, praising it for its ability to blend "a childlike sense of wonder with sophisticated emotions and motives".[37] Helen McCarthy in 500 Essential Anime Movies said that the natural world was "beautifully represented", with "some absolutely breathtaking mountains and lakeside landscapes". She also praised the design of the Castle and added that Miyazaki added his own themes to the film: "man's relationship to nature, the futility of war, and the joy of flight".[38] Joel Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal called the film "a moveable feast of delights".[39] Richard Corliss of TIME magazine wrote, "Palaces and shimmering lakes, warplanes and fire sprites all come to life at the breath of Miyazaki's graphic genius."[40] Writing for The Boston Globe, Ty Burr said, "At its best, 'Howl's Moving Castle' offers a rich fantasy of adolescent escape, of romance in the old and epic sense. At its worst, it's the most amazing 12-course meal you can't bring yourself to finish."[41] A.O. Scott of The New York Times wrote, "Admirers of [Hayao Miyazaki's] work, which is wildly imaginative, emotionally intense and surpassingly gentle, will find much to appreciate in this film because it demonstrates, once again, his visual ingenuity and his sensitivity as a storyteller. For newcomers to his world, "Howl's Moving Castle" is a fitting introduction to one of modern cinema's great enchanters."[42]

text: Conversely, Roger Ebert, also of the Chicago Sun-Times, gave it two and a half out of four stars, and called the film a "disappointment" compared to his recent movies.[43] Jonathan Trout of the BBC said, "Youngsters and Miyazaki fans will coo at the world's depth and rich surreality, but opaque plotting, and a tendency to mope with Sophie whilst Howl is off affecting events let the momentum of the first act vanish into thin air."[44] Writing for Salon, Stephanie Zacharek said, "the plot of "Howl's Moving Castle" meanders so listlessly that its details become less and less charming. Miyazaki's storytelling style resembles that of a breathless young tot who's fearlessly exercising his newfound powers of expression."[45] Stephen Hunter from The Washington Post criticized the plot of the film, saying "There is no story, or rather, there's no force to the story, which meanders almost casually this way and that for no apparent reason."[46] However, he said that the movie also empowered young women, and was "beautiful beyond telling."[46] David Rooney, writing in Variety, stated that "the narrative motor roars ahead in the opening hour and is more erratic thereafter," and suggested that better translation would help.[1] Literary scholar Matt Kimmich stated that the film came across as "uneasy compromise between two plots and two imaginations," referring to Jones' original story and Miyazaki's style of animation and storytelling.[47] However, he stated that those scenes which were not dependent either on Jones' original plot or Miyazaki's added plot threads found "a visual humor that recalls the verbal wit and lightness of Jones's novel,"[48] and that the "animation manages to free itself from the demands of the two plots—and flies."[48]

text: Top ten lists[edit]

text:
"There's a word for the kind of comic, dramatic, romantic, transporting visions Miyazaki achieves in Howl's: bliss."

—Peter Travers, Rolling Stone[35]

text: The film appeared on many critics' top ten lists of the best films of 2005.[49]

text:
2nd – Ella Taylor, LA Weekly (tie)
4th – Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times
5th – Tasha Robinson, The A.V. Club
6th – Lawrence Toppman, The Charlotte Observer
6th – Jonathan Rosenbaum, The Chicago Reader (tie)
8th – Michael Sragow, The Baltimore Sun
8th – Michael Wilmington, The Chicago Tribune
NA – Peter Rainer, The Christian Science Monitor (listed alphabetically)

text: Accolades [edit]

text:
Year

Award

Category

Result

Recipient

Reference

2004

61st Venice Film Festival

Osella Awards for Technical Achievement

Won

Howl's Moving Castle

[50]

Mainichi Film Awards

Best Japanese Movie Overall  (Readers' Choice Award)

Won

Howl's Moving Castle

[51]

Japan Media Arts Festival

Excellence Prize, Animation

Won

Howl's Moving Castle

[52]

2005

Tokyo Anime Award

Animation of the Year

Won

Howl's Moving Castle

[53]

Best Director

Won

Hayao Miyazaki

[53][54]

Best Voice Actor/Actress

Won

Chieko Baisho

[53][54]

Best Music

Won

Joe Hisaishi

[53][54]

Maui Film Festival

Audience Award

Won

Howl's Moving Castle

[53][54]

Seattle International Film Festival

Golden Space Needle Award

1st Runner-up

Howl's Moving Castle

[53][54]

2006

78th Academy Awards

Best Animated Feature

Nominated

Howl's Moving Castle

[55]

Saturn Awards

Best Animated Film

Nominated

Howl's Moving Castle

[56]

2007

Nebula Award

Best Script

Won

Hayao Miyazaki (script), Cindy Davis Hewitt, and Donald H. Hewitt (English translation)

[57]


document_title: Super Bowl ring

question_text: who has the most superbowl rings in the nfl

text: Super Bowl ring

text: Details[edit]

text: These rings are typically made of yellow or white gold with diamonds. They usually include the team name, team logo, and Super Bowl number (usually indicated in Roman numerals). The NFL contributes up to $5,000 per ring for up to 150 rings for the winning team; any additional costs are borne by the team.[1] Most rings are manufactured by memorabilia company Jostens. In 2015, the rings for the New England Patriots reportedly cost $36,500 each, making them the most expensive rings Jostens has ever produced.[2]

text: The winning team can typically present rings to whomever they choose, including usually, but not limited to: players (active roster or injured), coaches, trainers, executives, personnel, and general staff. Some teams have given rings to former players and coaches that were on the team at some point during the season, despite not having been on the winning roster for the Super Bowl itself.[3][4] Sometimes a team will give rings to fans as part of a charity raffle.[5] Teams can distribute any number of rings. A recent trend over the last 15–20 years has been lesser rings awarded to front office staff. These are commonly called "B" and "C" level rings and are smaller and contain fewer diamonds or contain faux diamonds. The first instance of this was the Redskins Super Bowl XVII ring when many in the front office received rings that were not solid gold and contained cubic zirconia stones (which resemble diamonds). When Tampa Bay won Super Bowl XXXVII, the players and coaches received rings with a diamond-centered Lombardi trophy. Some staff received rings with a metal Lombardi trophy and real diamonds surrounding the trophy and the "C" level ring did not contain any diamonds.

text: Many rings feature diamonds in the shape of the Vince Lombardi Trophy or a football. Some feature diamonds or gold in the shape of a team logo. Others illustrate the number of Super Bowls that franchise has won. Also, the rings are customized with the player's name and uniform number.

text: The Green Bay Packers Super Bowl XLV ring[6] contained more than 100 diamonds. The Packer logo, in the center of the ring, made up 13 diamonds, one for each title the team has won, dating back to 1929. In a break from tradition, this is the first Super Bowl ring to be made of platinum, not gold.[citation needed]

text: The New England Patriots Super Bowl LI ring has 283 diamonds, to commemorate their comeback from being down 28-3 versus the Atlanta Falcons late in the 3rd quarter.[7]

text: Value and resale[edit]

text: Replicas of the rings for various years are popular collectibles, along with genuine rings. Dave Meggett is known to have placed his ring for sale on eBay. Two Super Bowl rings from the 1970 Steelers sold on eBay for over $69,000 apiece in mid-2008.[8] Patriots safety Je'Rod Cherry raffled his ring from Super Bowl XXXVI in November 2008 to benefit several charities working to help children in Africa and Asia.[9] Tight end Shannon Sharpe, meanwhile, gave his first Super Bowl ring to his brother Sterling, who had his career cut short by injury.[10]

text: In 2011, a Super Bowl ring belonging to Steve Wright, a lineman for the Green Bay Packers in the 1960s, sold for over $73,000 at auction. Three Super Bowl rings belonging to former Raiders' punter Ray Guy brought over $96,000 at auction. In 2012, Lawrence Taylor's son sold his father's Super Bowl ring from 1990 for more than $250,000.

text: Most Super Bowl rings[edit]

text:
Seven: two people.

Bill Belichick: two as defensive coordinator of the New York Giants and five as head coach of New England Patriots
Neal Dahlen:[11][12] five with San Francisco 49ers (staff and player personnel) and two with Denver Broncos (general manager)

Six: six people.

Dan Rooney and Art Rooney II: each as an executive with Pittsburgh Steelers
Chuck Noll: four as head coach and two as a team consultant with Pittsburgh Steelers
Bill Nunn: each as a scout with Pittsburgh Steelers[13][14]
"Mean Joe" Greene: four as a defensive tackle, two as a special assistant for player personnel, all with the Pittsburgh Steelers[15]
Conditioning coach Mike Woicik: three with Dallas Cowboys and three with New England Patriots

Five: twenty people.

Charles Haley, five (two as a linebacker with the San Francisco 49ers and three as a defensive end with the Dallas Cowboys)
Tom Brady, five as starting quarterback with New England Patriots; he has the most rings of any active player (as of the end of the 2017–18 season), he is the only player to win five playing for one team, and he has more than any other quarterback in Super Bowl history.
Robert Kraft, five as owner of New England Patriots
Edward J. DeBartolo, Jr., five as owner of San Francisco 49ers
Keith Simon: five as CFO and Executive VP with San Francisco 49ers
Bobb McKittrick: five as offensive line coach with San Francisco 49ers
Ray Rhodes: five as an assistant coach with San Francisco 49ers
Bill McPherson: five as defensive line coach with San Francisco 49ers
Dick Hoak: each as a running backs coach with Pittsburgh Steelers
Romeo Crennel: two as a defensive coach with New York Giants and three as a defensive coordinator with New England Patriots
George Seifert: three as an assistant coach and two as a head coach all with San Francisco 49ers
Dwight Clark: two as a player and three as a member of the front office, all with San Francisco 49ers
Pepper Johnson: two as a linebacker for New York Giants and three as an assistant coach with New England Patriots
Monsignor Peter Armstrong: five as chaplain for San Francisco 49ers
Markus Paul: three as an assistant strength and conditioning coach with the New England Patriots, and two as an assistant strength and conditioning coach with the New York Giants[16]
Tim Rooney: Three with Pittsburgh Steelers and two with New York Giants (as Pro Personnel Director/Scout)
Josh McDaniels has won five with the New England Patriots his first as personnel assistant, second as defensive coaching assistant, third as quarterbacks coach and his fourth and fifth as offensive coordinator.
Ivan Fears has won five with New England Patriots his first as wide receivers coach and the remaining as running backs coach.
Ernie Adams has won five with New England Patriots as a football research director
Brian Daboll has won five with New England Patriots, one as a defensive coaching assistant, two as wide receivers coach, and two as tight ends coach

Four: at least 39 players, many coaches and staff.

The first player to win four Super Bowl rings was tight-end Marv Fleming, who got a pair with Green Bay Packers in 1966 and 1967, and another pair with Miami Dolphins in 1972 and 1973.
Twenty-two players earned four rings with Pittsburgh Steelers in the 1970s: Terry Bradshaw, Franco Harris, Lynn Swann, John Stallworth, Mel Blount, Jack Lambert, Jack Ham, Mike Webster, Donnie Shell, L. C. Greenwood, Rocky Bleier, Gerry Mullins, Larry Brown, Mike Wagner, J.T. Thomas, Loren Toews, Jon Kolb, Sam Davis, Steve Furness, Dwight White, Randy Grossman and the previously mentioned Joe Greene (who later added two more rings). At least five coaches were with the team all four years: George Perles, Louis Riecke, Woody Widenhofer and (as noted above) Chuck Noll and Dick Hoak. The list of Steelers front office staff receiving four rings during that era includes Director of Player Personnel Dick Haley.
Tom Flores: First person to have rings as a player (Kansas City Chiefs), assistant coach and head coach (Oakland Raiders)
Joe Montana, Keena Turner, Jesse Sapolu, Eric Wright, Mike Wilson and Ronnie Lott each won four Super Bowl rings with the 49ers.
Kicker Adam Vinatieri won three with the New England Patriots and one with the Indianapolis Colts
Russ Grimm won three with Washington Redskins and one with Pittsburgh Steelers
Ted Hendricks won one with Baltimore Colts and three with Oakland Raiders
Bill Romanowski won two with San Francisco and two with Denver Broncos
Coach Charlie Weis won one with New York Giants and three with New England Patriots
Matt Millen has four rings while playing for four different cities and three different teams, one with Oakland Raiders, one with Los Angeles Raiders, one with San Francisco 49ers, and one with Washington Redskins (only player to earn a ring with four different cities)
Sherman Lewis won three as running backs coach with San Francisco 49ers and one as offensive coordinator with Green Bay Packers
Willie Davis[17] Won all four rings with Green Bay Packers: two as a player, one as a member of the team's board of directors, and one as an emeritus director. He is the only person to possess all four of Green Bay's Super Bowl rings. Davis also won rings as a member of the 1961, 1962 and 1965 NFL Championship Green Bay Packer teams, bringing his unofficial championship ring count to seven, as the first three were awarded prior to the creation of the Super Bowl.
Mike Pope won all four of his Super Bowl rings as the long time Tight End coach for New York Giants
Ken Norton, Jr. was the first member of 3 Super Bowl-winning teams in a row as a player, and gained a 4th ring as the Linebacker coach for the 2013 Seattle Seahawks
Larry Izzo won three Super Bowls with New England Patriots, and one as the special teams assistant coach with New York Giants
Coach Gary Kubiak won one with San Francisco 49ers as quarterbacks coach, two with Denver Broncos as offensive coordinator, and one as the head coach of the Broncos
Dante Scarnecchia has won four with New England Patriots as an offensive line coach, along with being assistant head coach for three of them
Brian Pariani has won four rings. One as an offensive assistant coach with San Francisco 49ers and three as the tight ends coach with the Denver Broncos

Three: many players, coaches and staff

Among the many figures with three are Bill Walsh, John Elway, Mike Ditka, Mike Shanahan, Art Shell, Jerry Rice, Steve Young, Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith, Jay Novacek, Michael Irvin, Larry Brown, Eric Mangini, Joe Gibbs, Dave Dalby, Cliff Branch, Roger Craig, Shannon Sharpe, Ed McCaffrey, Mark Schlereth, Forrest Gregg, Herb Adderley, Tom Coughlin, LeGarrette Blount, and Matt Cavanaugh.
Twenty-two players earned three rings with the New England Patriots during the early 2000s: Troy Brown, Willie McGinest, Richard Seymour, Ty Law, Mike Vrabel, Tedy Bruschi, Kevin Faulk, Matt Light, Patrick Pass, Ted Johnson, Lonie Paxton, Stephen Neal, Joe Andruzzi, David Patten, Roman Phifer, Tom Ashworth, Adrian Klemm, Je'Rod Cherry, Matt Chatham, the aforementioned Adam Vinatieri (who later added a fourth ring with the Colts), the aforementioned Tom Brady (who went on to win two additional Super Bowls with the Patriots), and the aforementioned Larry Izzo (who won a fourth with the Giants).

text: Players with Super Bowl and Grey Cup rings[edit]

text: As of 2017, ten players have won championships in both the NFL and Canada’s equivalent Canadian Football League (CFL).

text:
O. J. Brigance (linebacker) won a Grey Cup ring in 1995 with the CFL’s Baltimore Stallions and won a Super Bowl ring in 2001 with the Baltimore Ravens. He is the only player to win both a Grey Cup and a Super Bowl with teams from the same city.
Brandon Browner (cornerback) won a ring in 2008 with the CFL’s Calgary Stampeders and then won a Super Bowl ring in 2013 with the Seattle Seahawks, although he did not play in that game due to a suspension. He went on to play against the Seahawks in the following year's Super Bowl, when he won a second ring with the 2014 New England Patriots.
Terry Greer (wide receiver) was the first person to win both championships; he won the Grey Cup as a member of the Toronto Argonauts in 1983, and two Super Bowl rings as a member of the San Francisco 49ers in 1988 and 1989.
Harald Hasselbach (defensive end) won a ring in 1992 with the CFL’s Calgary Stampeders and won a Super Bowl ring in 1997 with the Denver Broncos.
Bobby Singh (guard) is the only player to win a Super Bowl (1999 with the St. Louis Rams), and a Grey Cup (2006 with the BC Lions), and the XFL Championship (2001 with the Los Angeles Xtreme).
Alvin Walton (safety) won two Super Bowl rings with the NFL's Washington Redskins (1987 and 1991 seasons, but he did not participate in the 1991 season Super Bowl victory) and won a Grey Cup ring with the Baltimore Stallions in 1995.
Barry Wilburn (cornerback) won a Super Bowl with the Washington Redskins in 1988 and the Grey Cup in 1994 with the BC Lions.
Tyrone Williams (wide receiver) won two Super Bowl rings with Dallas in 1992 and 1993, although he did not participate in either game. He then won a Grey Cup ring with the Toronto Argonauts in 1996.
Andre Rison (wide receiver) won a Super Bowl with the Green Bay Packers in 1996, and a Grey Cup with the Toronto Argonauts in 2004.
Josh Miller (punter) won a Grey Cup with the Baltimore Stallions in 1995, and a Super Bowl with the New England Patriots in 2004.


document_title: List of English monarchs

question_text: who was the first female monarch of england

text: List of English monarchs

text: House of Wessex[edit]

text:
Name
Portrait
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim
Ref.

Alfred the Great
23 April 871
–
26 October 899
(28 years, 187 days)

849

Son of Æthelwulf of Wessex
and Osburh
Ealhswith
Gainsborough
868
5 children
26 October 899
Aged about 50
Son of Æthelwulf of Wessex

Treaty of Wedmore
[4]
[5]
[6]

Edward the Elder
26 October 899
–
17 July 924
(24 years, 266 days)

c. 874

Son of Alfred
and Ealhswith
(1) Ecgwynn
c. 893
2 children

(2) Ælfflæd
c. 900
8 children

(3) Eadgifu
c. 919
4 children
17 July 924
Aged about 50
Son of Alfred
[7]

text: Disputed

text: There is some evidence that Ælfweard of Wessex may have been king for up to four weeks in 924 (timing itself is unclear, as he died 16 days, not 28 days, after his father), between his father Edward the Elder and his brother Æthelstan, although he was not crowned.[8] However, this is not accepted by all historians. Also, it is unclear whether—if Ælfweard was declared king—it was over the whole kingdom or of Wessex only: one interpretation of the ambiguous evidence is that when Edward died, Ælfweard was declared king in Wessex and Æthelstan in Mercia.[9]

text:
Name
Portrait
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim

Ælfweard
c. 17 July 924
–
2 August 924[10]
(16 days)
Does not appear
c. 901[11]

Son of Edward the Elder
and Ælfflæd[11]
Does not appear Unmarried?
No children
2 August 924[9]
Aged about 23[i]
Son of Edward the Elder

text:
Name
Portrait
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim
Ref.

Æthelstan
924
King of the Anglo-Saxons (924–927)
–
King of the English (927–939)27 October 939
(14–15 years)

894

Son of Edward the Elder
and Ecgwynn
Does not appear Unmarried
27 October 939
Aged about 45
Son of Edward the Elder
[13]
[14]

Edmund I
27 October 939
–
26 May 946
(6 years, 212 days)

c. 921

Son of Edward the Elder
and Eadgifu of Kent
(1) Ælfgifu of Shaftesbury
2 sons

(2) Æthelflæd of Damerham
944
No children
26 May 946
Pucklechurch
Killed in a brawl aged about 25
Son of Edward the Elder
[15]
[16]
[17]

Eadred
26 May 946
–
23 November 955
(9 years, 182 days)

c. 923

Son of Edward the Elder
and Eadgifu of Kent
Does not appear Unmarried
23 November 955
Frome
Aged about 32
Son of Edward the Elder
[18]
[19]
[20]

Eadwig
23 November 955
–
1 October 959
(3 years, 313 days)

c. 940

Son of Edmund I
and Ælfgifu of Shaftesbury
Ælfgifu
No verified children
1 October 959
Aged about 19
Son of Edmund I
[21]
[22]
[23]

Edgar the Peaceful
1 October 959
–
8 July 975
(15 years, 281 days)

c. 943
Wessex

Son of Edmund I
and Ælfgifu of Shaftesbury
(1) Æthelflæd
c. 960
1 son

(2) Ælfthryth
c. 964
2 sons
8 July 975
Winchester
Aged 31
Son of Edmund I
[24]
[25]
[26]

Edward the Martyr
8 July 975
–
18 March 978
(2 years, 254 days)

c. 962

Son of Edgar the Peaceful
and Æthelflæd
Does not appear Unmarried
18 March 978
Corfe Castle
Murdered aged about 16
Son of Edgar the Peaceful
[27]
[28]

(1st reign)[ii]
Æthelred
Æthelred the Unready
18 March 978
–
1013
(34–35 years)

c. 968

Son of Edgar the Peaceful
and Ælfthryth
(1) Ælfgifu of York
991
9 children

(2) Emma of Normandy
1002
3 children
23 April 1016
London
Aged about 48
Son of Edgar the Peaceful
[30]
[29]
[31]

text: House of Denmark[edit]

text: England came under the control of Sweyn Forkbeard, a Danish king, after an invasion in 1013, during which Æthelred abandoned the throne and went into exile in Normandy.

text:
Name
Portrait
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim
Ref.

Sweyn
Sweyn Forkbeard
25 December 1013
–
3 February 1014
(41 days)

c. 960
Denmark

Son of Harald Bluetooth
and Gyrid Olafsdottir
(1) Gunhild of Wenden
c. 990
7 children

(2) Sigrid the Haughty
c. 1000
1 daughter
3 February 1014
Gainsborough
Aged about 54
Right of conquest
[32]
[33]
[34]

text: House of Wessex (restored, first time)[edit]

text: Following the death of Sweyn Forkbeard, Æthelred the Unready returned from exile and was again proclaimed king on 3 February 1014. His son succeeded him after being chosen king by the citizens of London and a part of the Witan,[35] despite ongoing Danish efforts in wresting the crown from the West Saxons.

text:
Name
Portrait
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim
Ref.

(2nd reign)
Æthelred
Æthelred the Unready
3 February 1014
–
23 April 1016
(2 years, 81 days)

c. 968

Son of Edgar the Peaceful
and Ælfthryth
(1) Ælfgifu of York
991
9 children

(2) Emma of Normandy
1002
3 children
23 April 1016
London
Aged about 48
Son of Edgar the Peaceful
[30]
[29]
[31]

Edmund Ironside
23 April 1016
–
30 November 1016
(222 days)

c. 990

Son of Æthelred
and Ælfgifu of York
Edith of East Anglia
2 children
30 November 1016
Glastonbury
Aged 26
Son of Æthelred
[35]
[36]
[37]

text: House of Denmark (restored)[edit]

text: Following the decisive Battle of Assandun on 18 October 1016, King Edmund signed a treaty with Cnut in which all of England except for Wessex would be controlled by Cnut.[38] Upon Edmund's death on 30 November, Cnut ruled the whole kingdom as its sole king.

text:
Name
Portrait
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim
Ref.

Canute
Cnut the Great
18 October 1016
–
12 November 1035
(19 years, 26 days)

c. 995

Son of Sweyn Forkbeard
and Gunhilda of Poland
(1) Ælfgifu of Northampton
2 sons

(2) Emma of Normandy
1017
2 children
12 November 1035
Shaftesbury
Aged about 40
Son of Sweyn

Treaty of Deerhurst
[39]
[40]

Harold Harefoot
12 November 1035
–
17 March 1040[iii]
(4 years, 127 days)

c. 1016

Son of Canute
and Ælfgifu of Northampton
Ælfgifu?
1 son?
17 March 1040
Oxford
Aged about 24
Son of Canute
[42]
[41]
[43]

Harthacnut
17 March 1040
–
8 June 1042
(2 years, 84 days)

1018

Son of Canute
and Emma of Normandy
Does not appear Unmarried
8 June 1042
Lambeth
Aged about 24
Son of Canute
[44]
[45]
[46]

text: House of Wessex (restored, second time)[edit]

text: After Harthacnut, there was a brief Saxon Restoration between 1042 and 1066.

text:
Name
Portrait
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim
Ref.

Edward the Confessor
8 June 1042
–
5 January 1066
(23 years, 212 days)

c. 1003
Islip

Son of Æthelred
and Emma of Normandy
Edith of Wessex
23 January 1045
No children
5 January 1066
Westminster Palace
Aged about 63
Son of Æthelred
[47]

Harold Godwinson
6 January 1066
–
14 October 1066
(282 days)

c. 1022

Son of Godwin of Wessex
and Gytha Thorkelsdóttir
(1) Edith Swannesha
5 children

(2) Ealdgyth
c. 1064
2 sons
14 October 1066
Hastings
Died in battle aged 44
Supposedly named heir by Edward the Confessor

Elected by the Witan
[48]

(Title disputed)
Edgar Ætheling
15 October 1066
–
17 December 1066[iv]
(64 days)

c. 1051

Son of Edward the Exile
and Agatha
Does not appear Unmarried
c. 1126
Aged about 75
Grandson of Edmund Ironside
[49]
[50]

text: House of Normandy[edit]

text: In 1066, several rival claimants to the English throne emerged. Among them were Harold Godwinson, elected king by the Witenagemot after the death of Edward the Confessor, as well as Harald Hardrada, King of Norway who claimed to be the rightful heir of Harthacnut, and Duke William II of Normandy, descendant of Rollo, founder of the royal House of Normandy, vassal to the King of France, and first cousin once-removed of Edward the Confessor. Harald and William both invaded separately in 1066. Godwinson successfully repelled the invasion by Hardrada, but ultimately lost the throne of England in the Norman conquest of England. After the Battle of Hastings, William the Conqueror made permanent the recent removal of the capital from Winchester to London. Following the death of Harold Godwinson on 14 October, the Anglo-Saxon Witenagemot elected as king Edgar the Ætheling, the son of Edward the Exile and grandson of Edmund Ironside, but the young monarch was unable to resist the invaders and was never crowned. William was crowned King William I of England on Christmas Day 1066, in Westminster Abbey, and is today known as William the Conqueror, William the Bastard or William I.

text:
Name
Portrait
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim
Ref.

William I
William the Bastard / the Conqueror
25 December 1066
–
9 September 1087
(20 years, 259 days)

c. 1028
Falaise Castle

Son of Robert the Magnificent
and Herleva
Matilda of Flanders
Normandy
1053
9 children
9 September 1087
Rouen
Aged about 59[v]
Supposedly named heir in 1052 by Edward the Confessor

Right of conquest
[51]
[52]

William II
William Rufus
26 September 1087[a]
–
2 August 1100
(12 years, 311 days)

c. 1056
Normandy

Son of William the Conqueror
and Matilda of Flanders
Does not appear Unmarried
2 August 1100
New Forest
Shot with an arrow aged 44
Son of William I

Granted the Kingdom of England over elder brother Robert Curthose
[53]
[54]

Henry I
Henry Beauclerc
5 August 1100[b]
–
1 December 1135
(35 years, 119 days)

September 1068
Selby

Son of William the Conqueror
and Matilda of Flanders
(1) Matilda of Scotland
Westminster Abbey
11 November 1100
2 children

(2) Adeliza of Louvain
Windsor Castle
29 January 1121
No children
1 December 1135
Saint-Denis-en-Lyons
Aged 67[vi]
Son of William I

Seizure of the Crown
[55]
[54]

text: House of Blois[edit]

text: Henry I left no legitimate male heirs, his son William Adelin having died in the White Ship disaster. This ended the direct Norman line of kings in England. Henry named his eldest daughter, the dowager Empress Matilda as his heir. Before naming Matilda as heir, however, he had been in negotiations to name his nephew Stephen of Blois as his heir. When Henry died, Stephen invaded England, and in a coup d'etat had himself crowned instead of Matilda. The period which followed is known as The Anarchy, as parties supporting each side fought in open warfare on both Britain and on the continent for the better part of two decades.

text:
Name
Portrait
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim
Ref.

Stephen
Stephen of Blois
22 December 1135[c]
–
25 October 1154
(18 years, 308 days)

c. 1096
Blois

Son of Stephen II of Blois
and Adela of Normandy
Matilda of Boulogne
Westminster
1125
6 children
25 October 1154
Dover Castle
Aged about 58
Grandson of William I

Appointment / usurpation
[54]
[56]

text: Disputed claimants

text: Empress Matilda was declared heir presumptive by her father, Henry I, after the death of her brother on the White Ship, and acknowledged as such by the barons. However, upon Henry I's death, the throne was seized by Matilda's cousin, Stephen of Blois. During the ensuing Anarchy, Matilda controlled England for a few months in 1141—the first woman so to do—but was never crowned and is rarely listed as a monarch of England.[vii]

text:
Name
Portrait
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim
Ref.

(Title disputed)
Matilda
Empress Matilda
7 April 1141
–
1 November 1141
(209 days)

7 February 1102
Sutton Courtenay

Daughter of Henry I
and Edith of Scotland
(1) Henry V of the Holy Roman Empire
Mainz
6 January 1114
No children

(2) Geoffrey Plantagenet
Le Mans Cathedral
22 May 1128
3 sons
10 September 1167
Rouen
Aged 65
Daughter of Henry I

Seizure of the Crown
[57]
[56]

text: Count Eustace IV of Boulogne (c. 1130 – 17 August 1153) was appointed co-king of England by his father, King Stephen, on 6 April 1152, in order to guarantee his succession to the throne (as was the custom in France, but not in England). However, the Pope and the Church would not agree to this, and Eustace was not crowned. Eustace died the next year aged 23, during his father's lifetime, and so never became king in his own right.[58]

text: House of Anjou[edit]

text: Stephen came to an agreement with Matilda in November 1153 with the signing of the Treaty of Wallingford, where Stephen recognised Henry, son of Matilda and her second husband Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou, as the designated heir. The royal house descended from Matilda and Geoffrey is widely known by two names, the House of Anjou (after Geoffrey's title as Count of Anjou) or the House of Plantagenet, after his sobriquet. Some historians prefer to group the subsequent kings into two groups, before and after the loss of the bulk of their French possessions, although they are not different royal houses.

text: The Angevins ruled over the Angevin Empire during the 12th and 13th centuries, an area stretching from the Pyrenees to Ireland. They did not regard England as their primary home until most of their continental domains were lost by John. Though the Angevin dynasty was short-lived, their male line descendants included the House of Plantagenet, the House of Lancaster and the House of York.

text: The Angevins formulated England's royal coat of arms, which usually showed other kingdoms held or claimed by them or their successors, although without representation of Ireland for quite some time. Dieu et mon droit has generally been used as the motto of English monarchs since being adopted by Edward III,[59] but it was first used as a battle cry by Richard I in 1198 at the Battle of Gisors, when he defeated the forces of Philip II of France, after which, he made it his motto.[59][60]

text:
Name
Portrait
Arms
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim
Ref.

Henry II
Henry Curtmantle
19 December 1154[d]
–
6 July 1189
(34 years, 200 days)

5 March 1133
Le Mans

Son of Geoffrey V of Anjou
and Matilda
Eleanor of Aquitaine
Bordeaux Cathedral
18 May 1152
8 children
6 July 1189
Chinon
Aged 56[viii]
Grandson of Henry I

Treaty of Wallingford
[61]
[62]

Richard I
Richard the Lionheart
3 September 1189[e]
–
6 April 1199
(9 years, 216 days)

8 September 1157
Beaumont Palace

Son of Henry II
and Eleanor of Aquitaine
Berengaria of Navarre
Limassol
12 May 1191
No children
6 April 1199
Châlus
Shot by an arrow aged 41[ix]
Son of Henry II

Primogeniture
[63]
[62]

John
John Lackland
27 May 1199[f]
–
19 October 1216
(17 years, 146 days)

24 December 1166
Beaumont Palace

Son of Henry II
and Eleanor of Aquitaine
(1) Isabel of Gloucester
Marlborough Castle
29 August 1189
No children

(2) Isabella of Angoulême
Bordeaux Cathedral
24 August 1200
5 children
19 October 1216
Newark-on-Trent
Aged 49[x]
Son of Henry II

Proximity of blood
[64]
[65]

text: Henry II named his son, another Henry (1155–1183), as co-ruler with him. But this was a Norman custom of designating an heir, and the younger Henry did not outlive his father and rule in his own right, so he is not counted as a monarch on lists of kings.

text: Disputed claimant

text: Louis VIII of France briefly ruled about half of England from 1216 to 1217 at the conclusion of the First Barons' War against King John. On marching into London he was openly received by the rebel barons and citizens of London and proclaimed (though not crowned) king at St Paul's cathedral. Many nobles, including Alexander II of Scotland for his English possessions, gathered to give homage to him. However, in signing the Treaty of Lambeth in 1217, Louis conceded that he had never been the legitimate king of England.

text:
Name
Portrait
Arms
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim

(Title disputed)
Louis
Louis VIII the Lion
1216
–
22 September 1217
(1 year)

5 September 1187
Paris

Son of Philip II of France
and Isabella of Hainault
Blanche of Castile
Port-Mort
23 May 1200
13 children
8 November 1226
Montpensier
Aged 39
Right of conquest

text: House of Plantagenet[edit]

text: The House of Plantagenet takes its name from Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou, husband of the Empress Matilda and father of Henry II. The name Plantagenet itself was unknown as a family name per se until Richard of York adopted it as his family name in the 15th century. It has since been retroactively applied to English monarchs from Henry II onward. It is common among modern historians to refer to Henry II and his sons as the "Angevins" due to their vast continental Empire, and most of the Angevin kings before John spent more time in their continental possessions than in England. It is from the time of Henry III, after the loss of most of the family's continental possessions, that the Plantagenet kings became more English in nature. The Houses of Lancaster and York are cadet branches of the House of Plantagenet.

text:
Name
Portrait
Arms
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim
Ref.

Henry III
Henry of Winchester
28 October 1216[g]
–
16 November 1272
(56 years, 20 days)

1 October 1207
Winchester Castle

Son of John
and Isabella of Angoulême
Eleanor of Provence
Canterbury Cathedral
14 January 1236
5 children
16 November 1272
Westminster Palace
Aged 65
Son of John

Primogeniture
[66]

[65]

Edward I
Edward Longshanks
20 November 1272[h]
–
7 July 1307
(34 years, 230 days)

17 June 1239
Palace of Westminster

Son of Henry III
and Eleanor of Provence
(1) Eleanor of Castile
Abbey of Santa María la Real de Las Huelgas
18 October 1254
16 children

(2) Margaret of France
Canterbury
10 September 1299
3 children
7 July 1307
Burgh by Sands
Aged 68
Son of Henry III

Primogeniture
[67]
[68]

Edward II
Edward of Caernarfon
8 July 1307[i]
–
20 January 1327
(19 years, 197 days)

25 April 1284
Caernarfon Castle

Son of Edward I
and Eleanor of Castile
Isabella of France
Boulogne Cathedral
24 January 1308
4 children
21 September 1327
Berkeley Castle
Murdered aged 43[xi]
Son of Edward I

Primogeniture
[70]
[71]

Edward III
25 January 1327[j]
–
21 June 1377
(50 years, 148 days)

13 November 1312
Windsor Castle

Son of Edward II
and Isabella of France
Philippa of Hainault
York Minster
25 January 1328
14 children
21 June 1377
Sheen Palace
Aged 64
Son of Edward II

Primogeniture
[72]
[71]

Richard II
22 June 1377[k]
–
29 September 1399
(22 years, 100 days)

6 January 1367
Bordeaux

Son of Edward the Black Prince
and Joan of Kent
(1) Anne of Bohemia
14 January 1382
No children

(2) Isabella of Valois
Calais
4 November 1396
No children
14 February 1400
Pontefract Castle
Aged 33
Grandson of Edward III

Primogeniture
[73]
[74]

text: House of Lancaster[edit]

text: This house descended from Edward III's third surviving son, John of Gaunt. Henry IV seized power from Richard II (and also displaced the next in line to the throne, Edmund Mortimer (then aged 7), a descendant of Edward III's second son, Lionel of Antwerp).

text:
Name
Portrait
Arms
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim
Ref.

Henry IV
Henry of Bolingbroke
30 September 1399[l]
–
20 March 1413
(13 years, 172 days)

3 April 1367
Bolingbroke Castle

Son of John of Gaunt
and Blanche of Lancaster
(1) Mary de Bohun
Arundel Castle
27 July 1380
7 children

(2) Joanna of Navarre
Winchester Cathedral
7 February 1403
No children
20 March 1413
Westminster Abbey
Aged 45
Grandson / heir male of Edward III

Usurpation / agnatic primogeniture
[75]
[76]
[74]

Henry V
21 March 1413[m]
–
31 August 1422
(9 years, 164 days)

16 September 1386
Monmouth Castle

Son of Henry IV
and Mary de Bohun
Catherine of Valois
Troyes Cathedral
2 June 1420
1 son
31 August 1422
Château de Vincennes
Aged 36
Son of Henry IV

Agnatic primogeniture
[77]
[78]
[79]

(1st reign)
Henry VI
1 September 1422[n]
–
4 March 1461
(38 years, 185 days)

6 December 1421
Windsor Castle

Son of Henry V
and Catherine of Valois
Margaret of Anjou
Titchfield Abbey
22 April 1445
1 son
21 May 1471
Tower of London
Allegedly murdered aged 49
Son of Henry V

Agnatic primogeniture
[80]
[79]

text: House of York[edit]

text: The House of York inherited its name from the fourth surviving son of Edward III, Edmund, 1st Duke of York, but claimed the right to the throne through Edward III's second surviving son, Lionel of Antwerp.

text: The Wars of the Roses (1455–1485) saw the throne pass back and forth between the rival houses of Lancaster and York.

text:
Name
Portrait
Arms
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim
Ref.

(1st reign)
Edward IV
4 March 1461[o]
–
3 October 1470
(9 years, 214 days)

28 April 1442
Rouen

Son of Richard of York
and Cecily Neville
Elizabeth Woodville
Grafton Regis
1 May 1464
10 children
9 April 1483
Westminster Palace
Aged 40
Great-great-grandson / heir general of Edward III

Seizure of the Crown

Cognatic primogeniture
[81]

text: House of Lancaster (restored)[edit]

text:
Name
Portrait
Arms
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim
Ref.

(2nd reign)
Henry VI
3 October 1470
–
11 April 1471
(191 days)

6 December 1421
Windsor Castle

Son of Henry V
and Catherine of Valois
Margaret of Anjou
Titchfield Abbey
22 April 1445
1 son
21 May 1471
Tower of London
Allegedly murdered aged 49
Son of Henry V

Seizure of the Crown
[80]

text: House of York (restored)[edit]

text:
Name
Portrait
Arms
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim
Ref.

(2nd reign)
Edward IV
11 April 1471
–
9 April 1483
(11 years, 364 days)

28 April 1442
Rouen

Son of Richard of York
and Cecily Neville
Elizabeth Woodville
Grafton Regis
1 May 1464
10 children
9 April 1483
Westminster Palace
Aged 40
Great-great-grandson / heir general of Edward III

Seizure of the Crown

Cognatic primogeniture
[81]

Edward V
9 April 1483
–
25 June 1483[xii]
(78 days)

2 November 1470
Westminster

Son of Edward IV
and Elizabeth Woodville
Does not appear Unmarried
Disappeared mid-1483
London
Allegedly murdered aged 12
Son of Edward IV

Cognatic primogeniture
[82]
[83]
[79]

Richard III
26 June 1483[p]
–
22 August 1485
(2 years, 58 days)

2 October 1452
Fotheringhay Castle

Son of Richard of York
and Cecily Neville
Anne Neville
Westminster Abbey
12 July 1472
1 son
22 August 1485
Bosworth Field
Killed in battle aged 32[xiii]
Great-great-grandson of Edward III

Titulus Regius
[84]
[85]

text: House of Tudor[edit]

text: The Tudors descended from John Beaufort, one of the illegitimate children of John of Gaunt (third surviving son of Edward III), by Gaunt's long-term mistress Katherine Swynford. Those descended from English monarchs only through an illegitimate child would normally have no claim on the throne, but the situation was complicated when Gaunt and Swynford eventually married in 1396 (25 years after John Beaufort's birth). In view of the marriage, the church retroactively declared the Beauforts legitimate via a papal bull the same year (also enshrined in an Act of Parliament in 1397). A subsequent proclamation by John of Gaunt's legitimate son, King Henry IV, also recognised the Beauforts' legitimacy, but declared them ineligible ever to inherit the throne. Nevertheless, the Beauforts remained closely allied with Gaunt's other descendants, the Royal House of Lancaster.

text: John Beaufort's granddaughter Lady Margaret Beaufort was married to Edmund Tudor. Tudor was the son of Welsh courtier Owain Tudur (anglicised to Owen Tudor) and Catherine of Valois, the widow of the Lancastrian King Henry V. Edmund Tudor and his siblings were either illegitimate, or the product of a secret marriage, and owed their fortunes to the goodwill of their legitimate half-brother King Henry VI. When the House of Lancaster fell from power, the Tudors followed. By the late 15th century, the Tudors were the last hope for the Lancaster supporters. Edmund Tudor's son became king as Henry VII after defeating Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, ending the Wars of the Roses. King Henry married Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV, thereby uniting the Lancastrian and York lineages.

text: With Henry VIII's break from the Roman Catholic Church, the monarch became the Supreme Head of the Church of England and of the Church of Ireland. Elizabeth I's title became the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

text:
Name
Portrait
Arms
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim
Ref.

Henry VII
22 August 1485[q]
–
21 April 1509
(23 years, 243 days)

28 January 1457
Pembroke Castle

Son of Edmund Tudor
and Margaret Beaufort
Elizabeth of York
Westminster Abbey
18 January 1486
8 children
21 April 1509
Richmond Palace
Aged 52
Great-great-great-grandson of Edward III

Right of conquest
[86]

Henry VIII
22 April 1509[r]
–
28 January 1547
(37 years, 282 days)

28 June 1491
Greenwich Palace

Son of Henry VII
and Elizabeth of York
(1) Catherine of Aragon
Greenwich
11 June 1509
1 daughter

(2) Anne Boleyn
Westminster Palace
25 January 1533[xiv]
1 daughter

(3) Jane Seymour
Whitehall Palace
30 May 1536
1 son

3 further marriages
No more children
28 January 1547
Whitehall Palace
Aged 55
Son of Henry VII

Primogeniture
[87]
[88]

Edward VI
28 January 1547[s]
–
6 July 1553
(6 years, 160 days)

12 October 1537
Hampton Court Palace

Son of Henry VIII
and Jane Seymour
Does not appear Unmarried
6 July 1553
Greenwich Palace
Aged 15
Son of Henry VIII

Primogeniture
[89]

text: Disputed claimant

text: Edward VI named Lady Jane Grey as his heir in his will, overruling the order of succession laid down by Parliament in the Third Succession Act. Four days after his death on 6 July 1553, Jane was proclaimed queen—the first of three Tudor women to be proclaimed queen regnant. Nine days after the proclamation, on 19 July, the Privy Council switched allegiance and proclaimed Edward VI's Catholic half-sister Mary queen. Jane was executed for treason in 1554, aged 16.

text:
Name
Portrait
Arms
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim
Ref.

(Title disputed)
Jane
10 July 1553
–
19 July 1553
(Overthrown after 9 days)

October 1537
Bradgate Park

Daughter of the 1st Duke of Suffolk
and Frances Brandon
Guildford Dudley
The Strand
21 May 1553
No children
12 February 1554
Tower of London
Executed aged 16
Great-granddaughter of Henry VII

Devise for the Succession
[90]
[91]

text:
Name
Portrait
Arms
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim
Ref.

Mary I
Bloody Mary
19 July 1553[t]
–
17 November 1558
(5 years, 122 days)

18 February 1516
Greenwich Palace

Daughter of Henry VIII
and Catherine of Aragon
Philip II of Spain
Winchester Cathedral
25 July 1554
No children
17 November 1558
St James's Palace
Aged 42
Daughter of Henry VIII

Third Succession Act
[92]

(Jure uxoris)
Philip
25 July 1554[xv]
–
17 November 1558
(4 years, 116 days)

21 May 1527
Valladolid

Son of Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire
and Isabella of Portugal
Mary I of England
Winchester Cathedral
25 July 1554
No children

3 other marriages
7 children
13 September 1598
El Escorial
Aged 71
Husband of Mary I

Act for the Marriage of Queen Mary to Philip of Spain
N/A

text: Under the terms of the marriage treaty between Philip I of Naples (Philip II of Spain from 15 January 1556) and Queen Mary I, Philip was to enjoy Mary's titles and honours for as long as their marriage should last. All official documents, including Acts of Parliament, were to be dated with both their names, and Parliament was to be called under the joint authority of the couple. An Act of Parliament gave him the title of king and stated that he "shall aid her Highness … in the happy administration of her Grace's realms and dominions"[93] (although elsewhere the Act stated that Mary was to be "sole queen"). Nonetheless, Philip was to co-reign with his wife.[94] As the new King of England could not read English, it was ordered that a note of all matters of state should be made in Latin or Spanish.[94][95][96] Coins were minted showing the heads of both Mary and Philip, and the coat of arms of England (pictured right) was impaled with Philip's to denote their joint reign.[97][98] Acts which made it high treason to deny Philip's royal authority were passed in England (see Treason Act 1554) and Ireland.[99] In 1555, Pope Paul IV issued a papal bull recognising Philip and Mary as rightful King and Queen of Ireland.

text:
Name
Portrait
Arms
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim
Ref.

Elizabeth I
17 November 1558[u]
–
24 March 1603
(44 years, 128 days)

7 September 1533
Greenwich Palace

Daughter of Henry VIII
and Anne Boleyn
Does not appear Unmarried
24 March 1603
Richmond Palace
Aged 69
Daughter of Henry VIII

Third Succession Act
[100]

text: House of Stuart[edit]

text: Following the death of Elizabeth I in 1603 without issue, her first cousin twice removed, King James VI of Scotland, succeeded to the English throne as James I in the Union of the Crowns. James was descended from the Tudors through his great-grandmother, Margaret Tudor, the eldest daughter of Henry VII. In 1604, he adopted the title King of Great Britain. However, the two parliaments remained separate until the Acts of Union 1707.[101]

text:
Name
Portrait
Arms
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim
Ref.

James I
24 March 1603[v]
–
27 March 1625
(22 years, 4 days)

19 June 1566
Edinburgh Castle

Son of Lord Darnley
and Mary I of Scotland
Anne of Denmark
Oslo
23 November 1589
7 children
27 March 1625
Theobalds House
Aged 58
Great-great-grandson / heir general of Henry VII
[102]

Charles I
27 March 1625[w]
–
30 January 1649
(23 years, 310 days)

19 November 1600
Dunfermline Palace

Son of James I
and Anne of Denmark
Henrietta Maria of France
St Augustine's Abbey
13 June 1625
9 children
30 January 1649
Whitehall Palace
Executed aged 48
Son of James I

Cognatic primogeniture
[103]

text: Interregnum[edit]

text: No monarch reigned between the execution of Charles I in 1649 and the Restoration of Charles II in 1660. Between 1649 and 1653, there was no single English head of state, as England was ruled directly by the Rump Parliament with the English Council of State acting as executive power during a period known as the Commonwealth of England. After a coup d'etat in 1653, Oliver Cromwell forcibly took control of England from Parliament. He dissolved the Rump Parliament at the head of a military force and England entered a period known as The Protectorate, under the direct control of a single individual known as the Lord Protector. While not officially monarchs, the holder of the office of Lord passed from Oliver Cromwell to his son Richard. Richard lacked both the ability to rule and confidence of the Army, and he was forcibly removed by the English Committee of Safety under the leadership of Charles Fleetwood in May 1659. England again lacked any single head of state during several months of conflict between Fleetwood's party and that of George Monck. Monck took control of the country in December 1659, and after almost a year of anarchy, the monarchy was formally restored when Charles II returned from France to accept the throne of England following the Declaration of Breda and an invitation to reclaim the throne from the Convention Parliament of 1660.

text:
Name
Portrait
Arms
Birth
Marriages
Death

Lords Protector

Oliver Cromwell
16 December 1653
–
3 September 1658[104]
(4 years, 262 days)

25 April 1599
Huntingdon[104]

Son of Robert Cromwell
and Elizabeth Steward[105]
Elizabeth Bourchier
St Giles[106]
22 August 1620
9 children[104]
3 September 1658
Whitehall
Aged 59[104]

Richard Cromwell
3 September 1658
–
7 May 1659[107]
(247 days)

4 October 1626
Huntingdon

Son of Oliver Cromwell
and Elizabeth Bourchier[107]
Dorothy Maijor
May 1649
9 children[107]
12 July 1712
Cheshunt
Aged 85[108]

text: House of Stuart (restored)[edit]

text: After the Monarchy was restored, England came under the rule of Charles II, whose reign was relatively peaceful domestically, given the tumultuous time of the Interregnum years. Tensions still existed between Catholics and Protestants, however, and with the ascension of Charles's brother, the openly Catholic James II, England was again sent into a period of political turmoil. James II was ousted by Parliament less than three years after ascending to the throne, replaced by his daughter Mary II and her husband (also his nephew) William III during the Glorious Revolution. While James and his descendants would continue to claim the throne, all Catholics (such as James and his son Charles) were barred from the throne by the Act of Settlement 1701, enacted by Anne, another of James's Protestant daughters. After the Acts of Union 1707, England as a sovereign state ceased to exist, replaced by the new Kingdom of Great Britain.

text:
Name
Portrait
Arms
Birth
Marriages
Death
Claim
Ref.

(Recognised by Royalists in 1649)
Charles II
29 May 1660[x]
–
6 February 1685
(24 years, 254 days)

29 May 1630
St James's Palace

Son of Charles I
and Henrietta Maria of France
Catherine of Braganza
Portsmouth
21 May 1662
No children
6 February 1685
Whitehall Palace
Aged 54
Son of Charles I

Cognatic primogeniture

English Restoration
[109]
[110]

James II
6 February 1685[y]
–
23 December 1688
(Overthrown after 3 years, 321 days)

14 October 1633
St James's Palace

Son of Charles I
and Henrietta Maria of France
(1) Anne Hyde
The Strand
3 September 1660
8 children

(2) Mary of Modena
Dover
21 November 1673
7 children
16 September 1701
Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye
Aged 67
Son of Charles I

Cognatic primogeniture
[111]

Mary II
13 February 1689[z]
–
28 December 1694
(5 years, 319 days)

30 April 1662
St James's Palace

Daughter of James II
and Anne Hyde
William III of England
St James's Palace
4 November 1677
No children
28 December 1694
Kensington Palace
Aged 32
Daughter of James II

Offered the Crown by Parliament
[112]

William III
William of Orange
13 February 1689[z]
–
8 March 1702
(13 years, 24 days)

4 November 1650
The Hague

Son of William II of Orange
and Mary of England
Mary II of England
St James's Palace
4 November 1677
No children
8 March 1702
Kensington Palace
Aged 51
Grandson of Charles I

Offered the Crown by Parliament
[113]
[112]

Anne
8 March 1702[aa]
–
1 May 1707[114]
(5 years, 55 days)
(Queen of Great Britain until
1 August 1714)
(12 years, 147 days)

6 February 1665
St James's Palace

Daughter of James II
and Anne Hyde
George of Denmark
St James's Palace
28 July 1683
No surviving children
1 August 1714
Kensington Palace
Aged 49
Daughter of James II

Cognatic primogeniture

Bill of Rights 1689
[115]

After the Acts of Union 1707
See List of British monarchs.

text: Acts of Union[edit]

text: The Acts of Union 1707 were a pair of Parliamentary Acts passed during 1706 and 1707 by the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland to put into effect the Treaty of Union agreed on 22 July 1706. The Acts joined the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland (previously separate sovereign states, with separate legislatures but with the same monarch) into the Kingdom of Great Britain.[116]

text: England, Scotland, and Ireland had shared a monarch for more than a hundred years, since the Union of the Crowns in 1603, when King James VI of Scotland inherited the English and Irish thrones from his first cousin twice removed, Queen Elizabeth I. Although described as a Union of Crowns, until 1707 there were in fact two separate Crowns resting on the same head. There had been attempts in 1606, 1667, and 1689, to unite England and Scotland by Acts of Parliament, but it was not until the early eighteenth century that the idea had the support of both political establishments behind it, albeit for rather different reasons.

text: Timeline of English monarchs[edit]

text: Titles[edit]

text: The standard title for all monarchs from Æthelstan until the time of King John was Rex Anglorum ("King of the English"). In addition, many of the pre-Norman kings assumed extra titles, as follows:

text:
Æthelstan: Rex totius Britanniae ("King of the Whole of Britain")
Edmund the Magnificent: Rex Britanniæ ("King of Britain") and Rex Anglorum cæterarumque gentium gobernator et rector ("King of the English and of other peoples governor and director")
Eadred: Regis qui regimina regnorum Angulsaxna, Norþhymbra, Paganorum, Brettonumque ("Reigning over the governments of the kingdoms of the Anglo-Saxons, Northumbrians, Pagans, and British")
Eadwig the Fair: Rex nutu Dei Angulsæxna et Northanhumbrorum imperator paganorum gubernator Breotonumque propugnator ("King by the will of God, Emperor of the Anglo-Saxons and Northumbrians, governor of the pagans, commander of the British")
Edgar the Peaceful: Totius Albionis finitimorumque regum basileus ("King of all Albion and its neighbouring realms")
Canute: Rex Anglorum totiusque Brittannice orbis gubernator et rector ("King of the English and of all the British sphere governor and ruler") and Brytannie totius Anglorum monarchus ("Monarch of all the English of Britain")

text: In the Norman period Rex Anglorum remained standard, with occasional use of Rex Anglie ("King of England"). The Empress Matilda styled herself Domina Anglorum ("Lady of the English").

text: From the time of King John onwards all other titles were eschewed in favour of Rex or Regina Anglie.

text: In 1604 James I, who had inherited the English throne the previous year, adopted the title (now usually rendered in English rather than Latin) King of Great Britain. The English and Scottish parliaments, however, did not recognise this title until the Acts of Union of 1707 under Queen Anne (who was Queen of Great Britain rather than king).[xvi]