Talk:List of British monarchs by longevity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Calculation

Is it me or do the first two in the list not add up properly?

Victoria
29,829 days
81y 7m 29d
George III
29,823 days
81y 7m 25d
Difference
6 days
4 days

violet/riga (t) 00:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have independently noticed the same issue, and I prepared the following question before I was aware of yours. JackofOz 03:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anomaly

We say that if QE2 lives to 16 December 2007, she would surpass George III, and if she lives just 4 more days to 20 December, she will be older than Queen Victoria. This is obviously based on the 4-day difference between the 81y7m25d of George and the 81y7m29d of Victoria. However the previous column, in days only, suggests they were not 4, but 6, days apart in age at death (29829 – 29823 = 6).

I understand why these would come out differently. Months have varying lengths, so one month does not necessarily equal another. That's OK, as far as it goes. And we have to choose one yardstick over another. So, if we’re going to use the final YMD column as the primary yardstick, we should (a) make it clear that that's the one we're using, and (b) therefore put it in a more prominent position, to the left of the Days column.

This also leaves the issue of why we calculate their lives in Days at all, if we never use that information for anything. JackofOz 03:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I implemented my own recommendation (a), but another editor has now removed it. Back to square 1. I'll wait to what others have to say before taking any further action. JackofOz 11:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely the more accurate a measurement of longevity would be days alone, as months can vary. Hence I would use the six day difference to calculate when QE2 becomes the oldest reigning monarch. Rossenglish 17:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] NEW MATH

George's total is off by 1 day. His total days lived is 29,824. Here's how the math works out -- and it all comes down to the anomaly of what we call Leap Year. Using only the day of Birth OR Death (not both) the math works.

- George III lived 61 full years (non-leap years) = 61x365 = 22,265 days. He lived 20 full Leap years = 20x366 = 7,320. He then lived 239 days over that. Note that he died on Jan 29, which was before the extra day in the leap year (1820). Total days lived is 29,824.

- Victoria lived 60 full years (non-leap years) = 60x365 - 21,900 days. She lived 21 full Leap years = 21x366 = 7,686. She the lived 243 days over that. Total days lived is 29,829.

With both Monarchs living very close in their total number of days, the variance could only be 1 day when accounting for Leap Years.

Hope this helps the discussion. ZamTx1 13:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British monarchs 1603-1707 ?

This article contradicts List of British monarchs, List of English monarchs, Union of the Crowns, Acts of Union, 1707. James I/VI through Anne (pre-1707) -were not British monarch- they were concurrently English, Scottish, Irish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birth and Death or Birth or Death?

In prior entry, an editor assumed that the total days lived should include either the date of death or of birth in the count. I take no stand on the issue, but want to know which is intended to be used in the calculation of a person's age in days for this article. By way of illustration, assume a person is born on 1 January 2000 and dies on 2 January 2000. Do we, for the purposes of this article, consider the person to have lived one day or two? -Rrius (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The decision that the birth and death dates should be reckoned in with the total number of days lived makes good sense. ZamTx1 (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Relative Ages of George III and Victoria

No matter how I run them, I cannot get the six-day difference indicated by Longevity in Days column of the chart in this article. By my math, the difference is five days. I arrived at my answers by hand and confirmed them with MS Excel (because 1900 is the start of time for Microsoft, I transposed the monarchs' lives to begin in the 21st century.

As an initial matter, I must point out that years divisible by 100 but not by 400 are not leap years under the Gregorian calendar. Thus 1800 and 1900 were not leap years. I should state that I assumed, for the purposes of this article, that we include both the date of birth and the date of death in the Longevity in Days column.


[edit] George III

George III was born on 4 June 1738. That was the first of the last 211 days of 1738; thus, GIII lived 211 days in 1738.

1739-1819: GIII was alive for 81 whole years, of which 19 were leap years (remember that 1800, despite being divisible by four, was not a leap year). Therefore, GIII lived ((81 × 365) + 19) = (29,565 + 19) = 29,584 days.

1820: Finally, GIII was alive for the first 29 days of 1820.

Total: (211 + 29584 + 29) = 29,824 days George III lived, including his date of birth and date of death.


[edit] Victoria

Victoria was born on 24 May 1819. That was the first of the last 222 days of 1819; thus Victoria lived 222 days in 1819.

1820-1900: Victoria was alive for 81 whole years, of which 20 were leap years (remember that 1900, despite being divisible by four, was not a leap year). Therefore, Victoria lived ((81 × 365) + 20) = (29,565 + 20) = 29,585 days.

1901: Finally, Victoria was alive for the first 22 days of 1901.

Total: (222 + 29585 + 22) = 29,829 days Victoria lived, including her date of birth and date of death.

As a result of this, I am changing George III to 29,824 days. Rrius (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your maths. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should George II and George III's days be reduced by 11 days?

Eleven days were omitted from 1752 (3 September to 13 September) to transition from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar. My best understanding is that George II was born on 10 November 1683 (Old Style) and that George III was born on 4 June 1738 (OS). I will not edit those numbers at this time pending others' thoughts and my own research. Rrius (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Our George III article says he was born 24 May (OS) = 4 June (NS), which my private notes concur with. Nothing in the George II article, but my private notes reveal he was born 30 October (OS) = 10 November (NS). Thus, both dates are in NS and no adjustment is necessary. It would be good to find a backup source for G2, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I googled george ii "New Style" under advanced search limited to 10 results. An indented link states that George II was born 31 October (OS), but the link is not publicly available. -Rrius (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] ELIZABETH II

In light of the discussions above concerning the inclusion of dates of birth and death, Elizabeth II's total is off by one day. Today's (12/12/07) total on this page shows 29,820 days lived, but does not reflect the day of her birth

    Leap Years - 20 full leap years lived, including 2000 as a leap year - (366x20 = 7320)
    Common Years - 60 full common years lived. (365x60 = 21900)
    2007 - as of December 12, 2007 = 346 days
    Birth year - May-December = 245 days
    Birth month (including day of birth) - 10 days (April 21-30)
    Math
    21,900
     7,320
       346
       245
    +   10
    29,821

Hope this helps the discussion. ZamTx1 (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is how it works

May 24th, 1819 was a Monday and January 22nd, 1901 was a Tuesday

April 21st, 1926 was a Wednesday and December 20th, 2007 was a Thursday

So today, December 20th, 2007, Queen Elizabeth is as old as Queen Victoria was the day she died. Remember that 1900 was not a leap year. Calle Widmann (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, but I think Victoria was actually wrong because, unlike most of the people on the list, the day she was born and the day she died were both counted. I may even have been the one who did it. I have gone back and figured out where others were wrong and fixed them too. Some were way off. I also fixed the year, month, day count for a few people.
I also took the liberty of putting the language regarding surpassing Victoria back in since it will not happen until 21 December, but modified the section to note the tie. I also changed Victoria's "2" to a "1" for the time being because of the tie. -Rrius (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In your edit summary you noted that the Queen will pass Victoria late in the afternoon of 20 December (UTC). The Palace is putting that information out there and is basing it on the times of birth. Since this list is not that precise (i.e., not to the hour), can we agree not to make the change until 21 December? -Rrius (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I was wrong. Calle Widmann (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Not really, there are so many mistakes on this and the longest reign page that no one can be blamed for not looking at how any given mistake was made. I'm glad you wrote it out because I never thought of using day of the week to verify. What did you use to find the days of the week for the older dates? -Rrius (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I used a calendar that I have made myself. I'm a calendar freak. With my calendar it only takes me a few seconds to find out the day of the week of any date since before the Middle Ages in the Julian Calendar, the Gregorian Calendar and the 1700-1712 Swedish Calender. But you can also find numerous sites on the Internet which helps you with that, I guess. Calle Widmann (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future of the Article

Until now, there has been a reason to keep updating Elizabeth's days-alive count. After 21 December, that reason is gone. Is there something automated that can count the days alive (i.e., subtract 21 April 1926 by the current date)? If so, I suggest we use that and leave the year, month, day spots blank until she dies. If there is no automated counter, I suggest we leave both blank until she dies. Alternatively, we could replace the semi-automated counter with the actual year, month, day as of 21 December and let people update as they see fit, but include an "as of [date]" note for clarity. -Rrius (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discrepancy with 'length of reign' page

This page says that Elizabeth II will surpass Louis XIV in 2025, but the List of longest reigning Monarchs of the UK page says that she will do so in 2024. Which is right?-anguswalker (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I have changed that. Calle Widmann (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)