A number of commenters were dissatisfied with this list because they would have calculated the data in a different way. I am very sorry that my outcome did not match their expectations.
I should have recognised that Lancaster and York are technically two cadet branches of the Plantagenet dynasty, as any fule kno.
I also specified that my list was for the last 800 years, whereas in fact the Plantagenets came to the throne 800 years and 271 days ago, hence my given total was an exaggeration by approximately nine months.
By restricting my list to only eight centuries I carelessly overlooked the previous royal House of Anjou, comprising Henry II, Richard I and John, who are generally seen as another subgroup of the Plantagenets.
Had I been even more in tune with readers' thoughts, I might have been foresighted enough to extend the given timeframe back to 1066, taking on board the reigns of monarchs following the Norman Conquest.
Of course technically the line of Norman succession ended in December 1135 with the death of Henry I, hence his successor Stephen was nominally of the House of Blois, possibly interrupted by the presumptive rule of the Empress Matilda, and I could have updated my league table to reflect this, but quite frankly life's too short.
Meanwhile my dates for the House of Stuart assumed a gap for Commonwealth rule between 1649 and 1660, whereas the precise date of the Restoration remains debatable, so I could instead have assumed a continuation of the Stuart line during this interregnum.
I should also have made the distinction that my list of monarchs was specific to England, or at least that part of the United Kingdom now known as England. Regrettably I failed to make reference to a list of the monarchs of Scotland, specifically the impressive longevity of the House of Stuart, and I apologise for this omission.
Finally, because 24 hours have now passed since yesterday's centenary, the figure for the House of Windsor must now be adjusted to an annoyingly un-round total.
I recognise that even this is probably not the categorisation you would have used if you had been constructing the table yourself, because history is subjective, hence my interpretation of the rich pageant of royal lineage is unlikely to match yours. Nevertheless I hope that the four readers aggrieved by yesterday's calculations now feel that their issues have at least been addressed, if not fully rectified.
Also, please note that the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha remains at the foot of the table, which was essentially the point of the exercise.
I would like to finish by apologising for the tedious pedantry at the heart of today's apology.
If you have any comments on the accuracy of today's post, rest assured that pretty much nobody is interested.
