Methodology and Corrections: How Our Monarch Records Are Checked
How Ellone-Loire checks every monarch record against named published sources, what 'reviewed' and 'disputed' mean, how dates and calendars are handled, and the log of corrections made after publication.
Last updated September 2026
Contents9
This page sets out the monarch list methodology behind every list and record on Ellone-Loire. It shows how we check records, what the status labels mean and how we handle corrections. The short version is this.
We compare each record with at least two separate published sources. We name those sources on the page. Where they disagree, the record says so. This page is also the site's corrections page.
TL;DR: Each record is checked against two or more independent named sources. These include Britannica, the Royal Family website, UK Parliament, De Imperatoribus Romanis and peer-reviewed studies. "Reviewed" means agreement. "Disputed" identifies conflicting accounts, with both versions shown. Dates carry the precision supported by the evidence. The corrections log is below.
How the monarch list methodology checks a record
- Find the sources. Each record starts from established reference works and official sources. For British monarchs these include the Royal Family website, Historic Royal Palaces, UK Parliament and legislation.gov.uk. For Rome they include De Imperatoribus Romanis and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Britannica covers all topics.
- Compare them. We compare dates and titles, succession and key events across at least two independent sources. An aggregator that copies another source does not count as independent.
- Label the precision. A date appears only as precisely as the sources support. A bare year is never turned into a full date on the strength of a weaker source.
- Mark disagreements. Where reliable sources disagree, the record shows both positions, names both sources, and carries the disputed label.
- Distinguish evidence from tradition. Factual claims need reliable support. Legends and doubtful stories are labelled with their historical context.
- Name the sources on the page. Each page ends with a list of the sources checked, and each record box names the sources for that record.
What the status labels mean
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Reviewed | Checked against at least two independent sources named on the page; they agree |
| Disputed | Sources disagree, or the record depends on a counting rule that sources apply differently; both positions are shown |
Scroll for more →
Dates and calendars
England followed the Julian calendar until 1752; Russia followed it until February 1918. A source may record an event in both Julian and Gregorian calendars.
When both dates are supplied, the Russian pages put the Gregorian date first and label the Julian date. English dates before 1752 follow the sources. Dates before about 1000 CE and ancient dates remain approximate unless the evidence supports a precise record.
Counting rules
Different lists count monarchs differently. Each list states its rule. The main rules are below.
- Joint rulers count separately where they reigned as equals, such as William III and Mary II.
- Claimants who never held the throne securely, such as Empress Matilda and Lady Jane Grey, appear as separate, disputed records rather than folded into a count.
- Infant or deposed rulers, such as Ivan VI of Russia, count when most sources count them, with a disputed note.
Evidence and conflicting accounts
- Conflicting dates appear alongside their sources, with the reason for the disagreement explained.
- Figures, quotations and statistics require traceable sources.
- Legends and doubtful stories, such as the account of Caligula's horse, are labelled with their historical context.
How a record changes status
A label is not fixed. It changes when the evidence changes.
A disputed record becomes reviewed only when the sources come to agree. That can happen when a new study settles a question. The Romanov remains are an example. Their identity was once open. DNA work between 1991 and 2008 settled it, so those records moved to reviewed.
A reviewed record can also become disputed. That happens when a reliable new source challenges it. We then show both positions and name both sources. We do not wait for the debate to end.
Some records will stay disputed for good. The sources for them are too thin, or historians define the question in different ways. The start of the Holy Roman Empire is one case. Both 800 and 962 are defended, and no new find is likely to settle it.
Every change of status goes into the corrections log below, with the date and the page. That way you can see what changed and when.
Corrections log
| Date | Page | What changed |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-25 | Romanov execution; Alexei Romanov | Corrected: the remains of Alexei and Maria were identified in 2008 but have not been buried |
| 2026-09-25 | England royal family | Added separate records for Lady Jane Grey and the Interregnum; Edward V marked reviewed, never crowned |
| 2026-09-25 | When did the Western Roman Empire fall | Added the disputed record for Julius Nepos (476 or 480) |
| 2026-09-25 | All pages | Named sources added to every record box and page |
| 2026-09-26 | All pages | Text rewritten in shorter sentences for easier reading; no dates or records changed |
Scroll for more →
The corrections log records changes by date, affected page and corrected fact.
Report an error
If you find an error, use the contact page. Name the page and the record. We check every report against the sources named on the page. Every fix goes into the corrections log above.
Verdict: how the monarch list methodology works
The monarch list methodology on this site is simple to state. We check every record against at least two named sources that do not rely on each other. We show disagreements instead of hiding them. And we leave out what the sources cannot support. The lists themselves start at the lists of monarchs index.
Sources used across the site
- Britannica
- The Royal Family
- UK Parliament, Living Heritage
- Legislation.gov.uk
- Historic Royal Palaces
- De Imperatoribus Romanis
- The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History
Questions people also ask
What makes a record 'reviewed'?
Its dates and key facts have been checked against at least two independent published sources, such as Britannica, an official royal or parliamentary website, or a university-hosted reference work, and those sources agree.
What happens when two sources disagree?
The record is marked disputed. Both positions are shown with the sources named, and no single version is chosen as the default.
What happens when a claim cannot be checked?
Published dates, figures and accounts rely on authoritative or corroborated sources. A claim supported only by a weak source needs stronger evidence.
How do I report an error?
Use the contact page and name the page and the record. Each report is checked against the sources, and fixes are logged in the corrections table on this page.