Talk:Monarchies in Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Monarchies in Europe has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
WikiProject Europe (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Version 0.5      (Rated GA-Class)
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.

Dramatic expansion of the European Union?[edit]

I hadn't realized that Liechtenstein or Norway, let alone Australia, Jamaica, etc., were in the European Union. Have I missed something? -- Hoary 09:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The table at the bottom is meant to compare all European monarchies, while the Commonwealth Realms are mentioned because they are in a personal union with the United Kingdom... I *have* been thinking about expanding it into Monarchies in Europe instead. What do you think? —Nightstallion (?) 09:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
First, I don't know what you mean by a "personal union" with the UK.
Secondly, I don't know whether this should be about the EU or about [geographical] Europe or about something else; I really have no opinion. Actually I can't see the point of the article -- why it's more needed than Bicameral legislatures in the European Union or Two-party oligopolies in Europe or indeed Monarchies on the Pacific rim. I don't mean to say that there is no point, merely that none is really apparent to me. Perhaps this is what most needs attention, or perhaps I'm just a very poor reader.
(Mmm, Monarchies on the Pacific rim would be interesting: you'd have Japan, North Korea, etc. in red; and the US would be pink, thanks to its attempts to wring dynasties out of Adamses, Kennedys and Bushes.) -- Hoary 10:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
By "personal union with the UK" I mean exactly that; the head of state of all sixteen Commonwealth Realms, which include the United Kingdom in Europe, is Elizabeth II, which means that they are technically in personal union.
I believe it's needed because monarchies in Europe have many things in common, and information about them is best presented in an article specifically about them; apart from that, there are a number of articles whose existence is far more questionable than this one's. ;)Nightstallion (?) 11:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm certainly not questioning the last part.
Well, Canada, Jamaica, Britain, etc. certainly share the same monarch, but I can't see what significance that has for the EU.
Aside from monarches, what do the EU nations that have monarchs have in common that they don't also have in common with the EU nations that don't have monarchs? [You get a bonus five points just for parsing that.] Let's suppose that there were an EU constitution that mandated a meritocracy. Whatever else they are or aren't, inherited monarchies aren't meritocratic. It could then be interesting to compare the rationales the monarchies proffered for square monarchy with meritocracy.
I don't know much about monarchies, but I get the impression that the British and Monagesque monarchies share a strong element of soap-opera. Anything else? -- Hoary 14:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Mh, well, I believe it's significant insofar as the Queen still has a large ceremonial role in those countries (more so in Australia and Canada than elsewhere), and for the fact that it makes succession order changes more difficult. ;) Apart from that... Heck, I don't know, I'm very open to suggestions as to how to improve it... —Nightstallion (?) 15:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I wish I could help; but sorry, I'm blank. I wonder if any republican group might have some essay about how monarchy is incompatible with (modern) Europeanness. That might bring new ideas. -- Hoary 21:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Rescope to "in Europe"[edit]

It seems a little arbitrary to restrict it to "in the European Union". If that is a valid topic, so, obviously, is "Monarchies in Europe", and the latter would would make the former redundant. That already seems to be the way some of the content of this page is heading. While the personal union of Commonwealth Realms (and the status of the federal Kingdom of the Netherlands) is interesting, I'm not sure it is so relevant here as to merit detailed discussion. Noting the status of the British and Dutch monarchs, and briefly mentioning republicanism in their extra-European countries, would probably keep this article focussed. TheGrappler 01:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've also decided that "the latter would would make the former redundant" is my favourite personal Wikipedia typo so far. TheGrappler 01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been thinking about expanding it to "in Europe" and will likely do that in the future; and I agree as regards your redundant superfluous would. ;) I still think, however, that republicanism in the Realms is strongly connected to the Queen's status as (informally) primarily the Queen of the UK, and as such of note in this article, wouldn't you agree? —Nightstallion (?) 05:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 ;) And if read merely as an individual sentence, "The latter would would make the former redundant" is actually wrong, for without the former would the sentence would make no sense...
As for the rescope, yes, I think republicanism in the realms (and throughout the rest of the federacy of the Netherlands) is relevant, it's just a question of degree of relevance. So perhaps cut it down a little and provide relevant links. It's generally not a great idea to include too much information on topics covered better elsewhere, especially if this isn't an "obvious" article to update when those topics change, because it is more likely to go unupdated. I think these topics are relevant to the point of giving a briefly summary and relevant links rather than writing in any kind of depth. "Republicanism in the Commonwealth Realms" may be a better place to write a fuller summary article. TheGrappler 15:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, as long as I'm here, I'll certainly keep it updated. ;)Nightstallion (?) 06:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Roman numerals[edit]

Hi Nightstallion,

Excellent article!

One problem. The single-character Roman numerals show up as garbage on both my Mac and my Linux machines (using Firefox browser) -- at first I thought it was a weird mistake in the picture caption (which I hastily corrected), until I saw the edit history and noticed the mistake throughout the article.

I don't have a Windows machine running Internet Explorer or whatever I need to see them properly, so I'll have to take your word for it that they look better, when they render. But wouldn't you agree that maximum intelligibility should trump aesthetics in this case? That is, as long as a significant fraction of users (those using the popular browser Firefox and/or non-Windows machines, if my experience is representative) are not going to be able to read the page, we probably should stick to the more conventional I's and V's (and X's).

There's another issue here too, in my opinion -- a philosophical one. The single-character Roman numeral character set is, of course, incomplete; it obviously doesn't provide for every possible ordinal number. When you have to refer to so-and-so the XVIth, you have to use the conventional characters, right? Given that this is so, isn't it best just to use a consistent standard throughout the article? Kiscica 23:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Mh. While it *does* work for me in Firefox on WinXP, MacOS X and NetBSD, fair enough, you've got a point, I'll change it. (They *do* look better, though. ;)) —Nightstallion (?) 06:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
They may look better in a given font. In my experience -- and I see them a lot -- they much more often look worse.
Incidentally, I'd always thought they were specific to Japan, where a large percentage of people seriously believe that the roman-letter representation of number eight, for example, is a single character. -- Hoary 07:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold[edit]

Good article, but a few things:

No bold title in first paragraph reworked lead to satisfy this criterion
No "See also", maybe monarchies of other areas, other government forms in EU, past monarchies, famous monarchs, etc...
Well, I've put a link to the parent article from which I branched this of, but other than that, most are referred to in the text... Could you give me, or better yet, add to the article some examples of what you were thinking of?
I only see one ref in the table, is this stuff referenced somewhere I didn't see? rectified by citing CIA sources
Foot notes in the table make it look alittle long, maybe try not to seperate continents of UK commonwealth. done
Maybe a summary or see also of past monarchies of countries now in the EU.
I initially tried to do this, but it got out of hand and became very arbitrary in what to count as the first monarchy established on the territory of a state, how much to put into it about former monarchies, especially for countries with such a complicated history as Austria and Poland... I'd like to do it, but it's *too* much work, I'm afraid... Unless you have a better idea?
And a short summary of what a monarchy is. in the new lead

I'm putting this on hold for 7 days. I think you should be able to fix it up by then.  :) Joe I 03:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way the article is 74kb by yahoo. Joe I 03:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't know whether I can do it in just a week (slightly stressed currently), but I'll try, see comments above. What do you mean by "by yahoo", BTW? Didn't really get that last bit... —Nightstallion (?) 05:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Just meant it qualified as a long article(over 20kb). My searching by wikipedia isn't working, by searching for Monarchies in the European Union, I get Monarchy #1 hit and this page no where to be seen. Joe I 06:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems you've managed to address all my concerns. Didn't think you would so quickly. GA granted. Good Job.  :) Joe I 08:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks a lot! I still want to expand it at some point, thanks for your suggestions for improvement! :)Nightstallion (?) 09:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Registration of voters in Denmark[edit]

I've removed the link to "voter registration" regarding the Danish material, since this article deals with a voluntary registration on the initiative of individual citizens.

In Denmark, the procedure is somewhat different and goes like this: The actual voter takes no part in the registration process. Denmark's entire population is registred by computer, since each citizen is awarded a social-security number (in Danish: CPR nummer) shortly after birth (newborns are given a temporary number by the nurse who also reports the birth of the new child). Election campaigns generally take 21 days since § 56 of the Law regarding Elections [1] specifies that it is possible to vote by mail three weeks before the election day (if e.g. the voter will be abroad on the election day.) During this period, a computer at the Ministry of Taxation will print a personal valgkort (lit: "election card") for each citizen aged 18 or above on the election day. These cards are dispatched by mail and received by the voters around 4-7 days before the election takes place. The card informs about the topic of the election as well as the location of the local polling station, including the number printed on the table the person has to report to. When arriving there, the voter will find this table manned by (normally) four people, each representing a different political party. Two of them will verify that the person's valgkort has not yet been marked as used on the official list and will exchange it for a ballot paper. If the topic of the vote is a referendum on a change to the constitution, the proposal not only requires a majority, but also that least 40 % of all potential voters to vote in favour of the change (article § 88 in the Constitution).[2] Before 1953, this number was 45 %. --Valentinian (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

To me, the concept of registered voters applies in every country, as they either have to registry on their own (USA) or are registered by the state, but still should check whether they're correctly registered (as in Austria, and apparently Denmark); I've got no problem with your change, though. :)Nightstallion (?) 06:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I assume that I can count on you to keep us posted on when the next parliament passes the law, if it somehow happens to slip by the news? ;)Nightstallion (?) 06:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, unless Fogh surprises everybody and calls an early election, it will probably happen around 2009. I'll try to remember. :) Valentinian (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I s'pose he'll do it just like last time: Wait until it's less than a year before the scheduled time, then call the election when his ratings are good... Ah, the joys of incumbent-selected election dates... ;)Nightstallion (?) 05:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Australia[edit]

Still don't see why Australia etc are listed here - even if the UK was to become a republic it might not mean Australia will. Australia could become a republic and NSW, QLD etc remain as are! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.36.120.6 (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree after all the name of this article says it deals with "European Union" monarchies, if if its only legally, each Monarchy in in right of that own country now, thus Aussie or any other realms could in theory outlive a UK change. I move that we remove that part from the article Brian | (Talk) 03:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm against it, as the Commonwealth *is* closely connected to the UK and the EU. —Nightstallion (?) 12:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is not talking about world monarchies, and that's where the other realm's belong, they may be closely connected, but they do not reside in the EU. Brian | (Talk) 18:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I still hold to the opinion that as the queen of the United Kingdom is also the queen of the fifteen other Commonwealth realms, notable developments in those other realms are pertaining to this article. —Nightstallion (?) 14:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The Realms have nothing to do with the EU, there is no point in having the republicanism info there. This article is called Monarchies in the European Union, Aussie, Canada, New Zealand and the other Realms, are not, and most likely will never be part of the EU. It's a disgrace to have the Realms who are not part of the EU in this article, yet this article makes no mention of the other Europe Monarchies, who are not part of the EU (Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Norway and the Vatican City). In fact this is article is completely unneutral because of this and perhaps its time for a good article review Brian | (Talk) 18:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Just because you do not agree? I'm not opposed to including a bit of info on the other European monarchies, actually, but I'm still of the opinion that the Commonwealth *IS* related to the European Union and thus to its monarchies. —Nightstallion (?) 13:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If info was included about the other Europe Monarchies, I would not have as much of problem, however then I would suggest this article would need renaming to Monarchies in Europe or something similar.
I disagree that Commonwealth IS related to the European Union as that's not true, however the Commonwealth IS related to the UK. By following your logic through, if there was a page called Monarchies in the Caribbean Community or Monarchies in the Pacific Ocean all of the EU monarchs should be included in those lists, as the Commonwealth Realm Monarchies in those areas are related to the EU through the UK. Brian | (Talk) 18:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I meant that the Commonwealth monarchies are related to the European Union through the United Kingdom. Anyway, I'll work on including the other European monarchies; might take a bit, though, university semester starting right now. —Nightstallion (?) 08:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is a Euro person who lives in a republic so focused on Antipoden monarchies??? While the Australian/NZ Crown are linked to the UK Crown they are not in Euro and possible to ot live. Even if Australia was to become a republic, NSW, QLD etc could still be monarchies in their own right! 203.36.120.6 03:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that is most certainly impossible. —Nightstallion (?) 14:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Nightstallion, you are incorrect, there are many articles been published saying that can be the case, it is possible that a state can be a monarchy in its own right, while aussie as a whole can be a republic. That's why the bill for the referendum has to be passed by all state parliament's, if one state did not pass it, and the results when the other way, that state would have remained a monarchy. I might be incorrect, but I believe there was talk about that happening in Queensland Brian | (Talk) 18:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah your pretty right Brian but it would take referendum in each Australian state to change their own constitution. So in theory, Australia votes to become a republic, Commonwealth Parilement then passes the bill, GG (or Queen) signs the bill into law Commonwealth of Austrlia then becomes a republic, however each state must then have it's own referendum so it might be possible that some states become republics and others not. On the other hand it is also possible that some states might chose to become a republic and others not, while Austrlia remains a monarchy. Given the Austrlian constitution it is also possible that the Commonwealth Government might let new states join the Commonwealth who are already republic - say East Timor - or the Northern Territory (if its people select a republican form of government on becoming a state - if ever) so then it is possible that the Commonwealth of Australia could be a monarchy with a mix of republic and monarchy states. What many people overseas (and in Australia) often don't realise is that Australia is a Commonwealth/Federation of independent states - the states chose to belong and can break away at any time they so wish. To a large extent the states have as much power as an independent nation, own leagl system, laws, government and can largely do what they like with only the power the Commonwealth Government has being limited to sectionn 51 of the constitution. To a large extent it is lucky Australia states were all British colonies - if they had been a mixture of French/British/German (like PNG was before WWI) then we might already have an Austrlian Federation with a mix of both monarchies and republics.

The best comparrison I can think of is the EU. States join the EU and pass certain powers to it but remain independent States in their own right. 123.3.0.93 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I think the difference is rather large -- for one, noone would think that the Australian states could join international organisations in their own right. And while it may be legally possible to have monarchical states within a republican Australia, I think it's highly unlikely and rather questionable politically... Well, we'll see, as the next (Labour) government is highly likely to hold another referendum on the issue. —Nightstallion (?) 19:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Republican movements[edit]

"although there is a significant minority of republicans in all of them" - oh dear! This phrase is already marked as "citation needed", and quite right too! I have searched really hard today to find *any* evidence at all of a republican movement in the Vatican, or in Liechtenstein, or in Andorra - I have failed! Even if the statement is false for just these three tiny nations, surely the sentence should be removed or re-written. A one-word alteration (to "although there is a significant minority of republicans in 'some' of them") would greatly improve accuracy, would it not? Timothy Titus 18:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is nonsense relating to Denmark. Several political parties have historically had a republic as part of the party programme but the Queen is so popular that everyone attacking her position would destroy his / her own political career in a flash. The Red-Green Alliance is of course exempt from this rule, but the Socialist People's Party and the Danish Social Liberal Party would both suffer in the polls the moment they started campaigning for a republic. In Denmark, the majority supporting the monarchy is so big that it seems like ages since I read a poll on the issue. And that one had a majority of 80-90 % for the monarchy, but a few historical figures are listed on [3], see the box: "Foretrækker De en republik eller et kongehus?". Valentinian T / C 19:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that's not right, Valentinian; the last poll I've seen is from 2004, and it's linked in the article. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/12/1084289732842.html 80% is right, though. —Nightstallion (?) 09:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
In any case it is a political non-issue. It is never raised in election campaigns and it doesn't feature in the media. The Socialist People's Party used to have the republic as a very prominent feature of their party platform, but when they began realising that they were losing potential votes, they decided to ignore that part of the party programme. Even the Social Democrats are - technically speaking - anti-Monarchy, but it must be 35-40 years ago since they last spoke in earnest about ending the monarchy. The only real remnant of this policy seen in this party is that Social Democratic MPs normally don't accept decorations from the palace; cabinet ministers are automatically offered an Order of the Dannebrog. Political consensus seems to be more along the lines that should the entire royal family die out, that would mean the end of the monarchy rather than the selection of a new ruling family, as is otherwise specified in the constitution, but given that Danish society is deeply divided over many issues (the EU, left and right in politics, immigration issues), the future form of government is not considered a strongly divisive topic. Interestingly, had Denmark not been a member of the EU, support for the monarchy would most likely have been lower than it currently is, the reason being that the Danes since the founding of the EEC considered it a new "Roman" or "Frankish Empire", and this antagonism has never really worn off. It is also worth noting that the Danish constitution is incredibly difficult to change even if a political consensus to do so had existed. This is not the case. Valentinian T / C 12:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I know, I know; still, 20% support on a completely non-partisan issue is quite interesting. —Nightstallion (?) 14:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

History section[edit]

This section seems like it is needed. The section should include the history of monarchies in Europe and how the monarchies interbred. Casey14 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to write it! :)Nightstallion (?) 21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Luxembourg succession laws[edit]

If in Luxembourg only men can become Grandduke, how come Luxembourg had two female monarchs already? Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Under the topic Succession Laws, it says the following- "Liechtenstein and Luxembourg have an even older system of succession (agnatic primogeniture/Salic law), which completely excludes women from the order of succession unless there are no male heirs of any kind present..." -that is why. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Then, what's the difference with the system they have in Britain? Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
In Britain, if the monarch has daughters and a brother, then the eldest daughter succeeds him or her; in Luxembourg, if the monarch has daughters and a brother, the brother succeeds him or her. Females can only become the monarch if there are NO MALE RELATIVES eligible AT ALL, not just among the children of the last monarch. —Nightstallion 11:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth realms not part of Europe and thus irrelevant[edit]

The Queen of Canada, Australia etc. are not relevant to this article. We only share a monarch, the monarchies, however are distinct. Thus, Australia, Canada etc. are neither geographically or politically relevant to this article. I can see this has been argued before under the subheading "Australia". --Cameron* 16:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

These monarchies could be called 'European' in the sense that they are European in origin and culture (through the British monarchy). While the article should note the multiple roles of the Monarch of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I doubt that it's necessary to go into a small essay with pictures of standards. Perhaps just list the other realms of E2, with appropriate internal links.--Gazzster (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
And I wonder why the information supplied for the realms is about the republican movements in those countries.--Gazzster (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Mostly because I couldn't find much else of interest when I wrote the article, but you're of course free to add any information you consider worthwhile to give an overview; I just thought that it would be a good idea to mention the strong republican trend in the Commonwealth realms where such a movement exists. —Nightstallion 10:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Cameron has a particular view, which although is not correct, certainly has a degree of validity. I suggest to Cameron, rather than sticking fast to your viewpoint and deleting what looks like a lot of work, think about Europe as the birthplace and residence of the Queen and the cultural foundation of the monarchy. If Nightstallion is unsure what to include (to understand Cameron's viewpoint), there should be ample information in the various wikipedia articles starting with Commonwealth realm. --Lawe (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's fair enough to list the other realms over which Her Maj is Queen. But it should be enough just to list them.--Gazzster (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The Commonwealth realms should be deleted. The monarchies of Canada, Australia, New Zealnd etc; are not located in Europe. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Lawe, stating that my views are not "correct" is your opinion. I am entitled to my point of view, as are you. I fully agree with you that "Europe is the birthplace and residence of the Queen and the cultural foundation of the (commonwealth realm) monarchy". I don't have a problem with that. In my opinion a single sentence would suffice to mention the other Commonwealth realm monarchies. Listing them as they are at the moment, makes them look like European monarchies, which they are not. --Cameron* 10:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem of readers thinking that (say) Canada was in Europe can be easily resolved. For the monarchy to be non-European, the monarch would need to be not part of the monarchy. It seems me that the monarchy of Canada is physically and culturally located in Europe. If Europe vanished, then the monarchy of Canada would vanish along with it. I cannot think of another interpretation and I doubt there is anything in the academic literature which says the monarchy is not European. Weakness of the article is the relevance of republicanism, but perhaps rather than tear down this work, it can be improved upon to focus on the monarchy and provide the right information so there is no confusion. --Lawe (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest the republican information be moved to the Commonwealth Realm article, while Cameron makes clear in this article that realms are not ruled from Europe and so on. --Lawe (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest the material is already in other articles, such as Republicanism in Canada, Republicanism in New Zealand. So it suffices simply to list the realms here.--Gazzster (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Some of the countries listed do not have articles. --Lawe (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I have moved these summaries to the various monarchy pages. Nightstallions efforts are now appropriately placed within wikipedia. --Lawe (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, that may really have been a bit of undue weight. —Nightstallion 23:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) May we please delete the Commonwealth realms (except the UK) from this article? GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal, as I've explained before. —Nightstallion 23:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I also disagree. The nations themsleves are not in Europe, but the monarchy physically exists in Europe. There is no other relationship other than physical location at issue here. --Lawe (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, I'm in the minority (and it stinks). GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The monarchy is physically in Europe? Am I missing something? Last time I checked Rideau Hall was physically located in Canada, an entirely different continent to the UK. --Cameron* 16:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I reckon, we've no consensus for deleting the non-European realms. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
"..monarchy of Canada is physically and culturally located in Europe...". Somwhere's out there, G2 is screaming right now. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
No doubt, but this is a new way of working where we get results and all try to encompass in our writings a range of different views. --Lawe (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that the Canadian monarchy has its roots it Britain and that the countries are (to some extent) linked until this day but I'd like to see a source stating that the Canadian monarchy is physically and culturally located in Europe.... --Cameron* 16:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't say the realms are European. It states, in an incidental manner, that the Monarch of the United Kingdom is also monarch of 15 other nations outside of Europe. And now, it is just a list.--Gazzster (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The other Commonwealth realms don't belong. They're not even in the map. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Rather than continue this debate too long, I would like to note the very positive and productive exchange sofar. We started with Cameron deleting and Nightstallion restoring, but no edit war. Some of us agreed with Cameron, some agreed with Nightstallion. There are reasons to keep, reasons to delete. Gaz suggested it should be reduced to a list. Nightstallion agreed with my suggestion to move his republicanism backgrounder comments to other pages. From Cameron's comments, we acknowledge in the article that the realms themselves are not in Europe. We have worked towards common ground and seem close to getting the best result for the reader. Would those who want to delete the whole effort, like to suggest an alternative approach that other editors could more readily support? --Lawe (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on it! :) --Cameron* 16:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Done! A new article is born: Monarchies in America. All relevant info can now be transferred. :) Best, --Cameron* 20:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Jolly good. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It's been renamed Monarchies in the Americas. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Good solution. --Lawe (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
While I welcome the article Monarchies in the Americas, I don't seem to notice any valid reason yet presented here to justify the inclusion of a list of non-European Commonwealth realms. Surely a single mention of the shared nature of Britain's monarch should suffice; we already have a list of Commonwealth realms at Commonwealth realm. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Neither can I. One of the reasons I created "Monarchies in America" was because of this discussion! ;) All relevant material can be move there, and as you said a simple note will suffice here. ;) Best, --Cameron* 20:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
As written above, the monarchy exists in Europe, physically and culturally. Cameron has expressed his view and the article was changed to make clear this physical existence only goes so far and it does not even mention cultural existence. --Lawe (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Are you not confusing the monarch and royal family with the more governmental institution of monarchy? The former of the Commonwealth realms no doubt exist physically in Europe, but the latter does not, except for that of the UK, of course. Besides, none of this debate is relevant to the question of: why do we need a duplicate list here to that which exists at Commonwealth realm? --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't. But the appearance of the realms seems to be out of interest, not necessity. I can see how it could actually be helpful; to counter the idea that the realms are still part of a greater British empire, which is a common (but of course erroneous) belief.--Gazzster (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
If you look at your restrictions, strict civility is required. Endless questioning and negative personal comments are just part of why you have been banned for six months. Numerous agreeable changes have been made to this article, as a result of discussion and working co-operatively. I see action has been taken to conclude this. --Lawe (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Please stick to content Lawe, Miesianical is being perfectly civil. He is by all means allowed to discuss changes and it is I who reverted you. Nobody is suggesting we remove the section completely, we merely wish to remove a duplicate table from this article. The "Main section" link can be clicked, and readers can see the original copy on the Commonwealth realms article. Best, --Cameron* 16:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Precisely, Cameron. Thank you. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you've been positively dripping with honey, comrade. Don't get too tame, or we won't be able to enjoy our arguments! Now, how can we shorten your name? We can't say 'G2' anymore!--Gazzster (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is no argument to remove the list. It is not a duplicate list.--Lawe (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually it is an exact duplicate of the one at Commonwealth realm. --Cameron* 15:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Cameron - It is not a duplicate list. The columns are different and designed for this article. The list of countries is shorter. Hence the notion that this is the same list is wrong and an example of making erroneous assumptions. You can be assured that my edits are thoroughtly researched and focused on quality and accuracy. Hence the detail that you have overlooked in this case will be rarely found in my edits. Futhermore, my reasoning is consistant. I do not invent consensus but build it with other editors. So you will not find that I write about making a "WP:BOLD" edit on Dec-15, then claim "revert as per consensus" on Dec-16 (see Cameron's edit history on this article). As far anyone looking at this discussion would be concerned the real consensus a developed around Gazzter's idea of a list and you wrote the Monarchies in the Americas article. I would be disappointed to see that co-operative editing lasted for just three weeks. --Lawe (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I have not "invented" consensus. Miesianical said "I don't seem to notice any valid reason yet presented here to justify the inclusion of a list of non-European Commonwealth realms", evidently he is pro removal. GoodDay said "May we please delete the Commonwealth realms", he also agrees to the removal of the list. Gazzster and Nightstallion have no objections so long as the Commonwealth realms section remains. Needless to say, I too am for the removal of the list. So as far as I can see I am being reasonable and perfectly cooperative. --Cameron* 12:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Please be aware I won't let claims like this go through unquestioned. You have not commented on whether the list was a duplicate. Indeed it is not. You have changed your story from 'Bold' to 'Consensus' reasoning and I will now demonstrate the latter is incorrect. Miesianical was blocked at the time and did contibute to a consensus. I have checked again and Gazzster and Nightstallion have not said 'no objections' or anything of the sort. Gazzster said "We don't" about removing the list (22:50, 15 December 2008). I point out that GoodDay was honest to say he was in the minority (16:11, 24 November 2008). I repeat that the real consensus a developed around Gazzter's idea of a list and that you wrote the Monarchies in the Americas article. I am even more disappointed given that your last comments are based on the actual inverse of the evidence. Is this the right path for you? I will be interested in how you proceed. --Lawe (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The list is the same as the one on the Commonwealth realms talk page minus the part on Her Majesty's titles. So yes, it is in fact worse than a duplicate...it's an exact copy with bits omitted! If you believe I am in the minority, I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS. Miesianical, GoodDay and I advocate the removal of the table, you wish to keep it. We have stated valid reasons for its removal, you have stated none for its inclusion. Best, --Cameron* 22:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
If semantics are going to draw our attention away from the meat of the discussion, then perhaps we should be very, very clear in our wording: Technically, the list here and that at Commonwealth realm are not identical; they use different colours, they contain different amounts of information. So, to dispense with brevity and lay it out in totality: the list is not needed here because the information it contains can be found in another list at Commonwealth realm. Cameron, you are right to ask for a reason the list should be kept here, especially given the above fact. If Lawe would be so good as to present one... --Miesianiacal (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't think of a compelling reason. Then again, I can't think of a compelling reason to remove it either. So someone could do the 'be bold' thing, and I doubt too many would notice it had gone. --Gazzster (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Gazzter wrote: "I think it's fair enough to list the other realms over which Her Maj is Queen" and then "I can see how [the list] could actually be helpful; to counter the idea that the realms are still part of a greater British empire." I happened to agree with Gazzter's suggestion and put the work into making the list. Cameron's reason to remove the list is incorrect as mentioned and both M and C continue with the duplicate list argument which is disproven. Cameron says "If you believe I am in the minority, I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS", however the page he asks us to read does not talk about majority or minority holding sway. Cameron has now chosen his path and that is valuable to know. Anyway, the reason to include the list is that it shows the non-European countries which have their monarch residing Europe. This is not the same as the list of Commonwealth Realms. Furthermore, as monarchists argue, each monarchy is separate and unique. Of course, other sources may provide background about colonialism that could be very useful to the reader. --Lawe (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Lawe stated: "the reason to include the list is that it shows the non-European countries which have their monarch residing Europe. This is not the same as the list of Commonwealth Realms" Could you elaborate on what makes the list here so unique as to warrant its near duplication of what can be found already at Commonwealth realm? Especially in light of WP:SS seeming to say that we should only provide a "moderate amount of info on the topic's more important points" as a summary in one article of another article's content. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Lists of all kinds are duplicated in any number of articles. List of Australian monarchs, List of Canadian monarchs, etc, are duplicates of each other. The list of realms of the Commonwealth are duplicated many times already. One reason for duplication could be to save the reader having to follow a link. But it's not really an issue, you two. If you feel strongly about it Mies, remove the list.--Gazzster (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the list several times...and keep getting reverted... The monarch lists are not dupicate either ;). Note the beatiful portrait of Elizabeth and the Canadian flag to the left side. :) Lawe, could you please stop judging me and making comments on my actions. I'm sure readers can judge me by my actions without your help. --Cameron
Don't think the presence of those other lists slipped my mind, Gazz! ;) But, they're of a different matter; each technically deals with a separate subject from the other, whereas here we're looking at two lists that both explicitly deal with nothing other than the subject of the Commonwealth realms. All the matters of deciphering which realms are in Europe and which are not, as well as where the monarch resides, is all summed up in a single sentence now in the article: "...none of these countries are located in Europe, besides the United Kingdom itself, where the monarch resides." This simple solution would seem to make the list even more superfluous. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Like I say, that's cool. Just as it's cool to keep the list.--Gazzster (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a bizarre thing those other lists, and this discussion also. Gazzster, you're right about one thing - that this list is unimportant, except perhaps for the abandonment of honest debate and being able to work together. About 90% of the what Cameron wanted out of this article has been duly changed. Nightstallion was gracious enough to see much of his writing changed. Cameron wants this list to go away so, so, so badly, but won't put the effort in to come up with a defencible reason. He's said "duplicate list" when it is not. Miesianiacal comes up with the "simple solution" that the reader should go back and forth between two articles to work out what is going on, even though each country listed is independent. Many Wikipedia editors complained to me that the tactic of members of the ML was to just persist and persist and persist until they get their way. This shouldn't be the way Wikipedia works. Cameron has been shown nothing but good faith. I cannot see why even the most strident monarchist would complain about this absolutely benign article. I'm going to leave a note for Nightstallion, and see if he can provide light on this subject. --Lawe (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
"He's said "duplicate list" when it is not." I believe we're still waiting for you to tell us how the list having different colours and less information makes it so much different as to warrant its existence. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see what harm is done by having a little info on the Commonwealth realms in this article in the appropriate context... —Nightstallion 17:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no harm; hence, there can be a little info on the Commonwealth realms, without resorting to duplicating lists. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I've put in a request at WP:3O for a "third" opinion on this matter. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
That would make a "seventh" opinion. As has been stated multiple times now the list is not a duplicate list because it is not a list of realms, but a list of non-European countries who's monarch resides in Europe. The benefit of the list has already been explained twice (ease of use, independent nations, evolution from British Empire) and form part of a previously consensus which occurred with Miesianical was on a 3 week editing block. I note that Miesianical is going into revert mode, even though he is on a six month 1RR block. The recent changes cite an BBC article showing the support for republicanism in the "realms". The BBC article does not show if there is support for monarchism. Exageration of sources is another continuing issue. --Lawe (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The length of this section is 3,500 words --Lawe (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Lawe, you are still making personal statements. They are counterproductive, it'd be better if you kindly left them out of such disputes. OK, so we have moved away from the "duplicate" argument. It was a genuine mistake on my part. But since then we have stated that the table doesn't actually add any value to this article...I believe you still haven't addressed that point. --Cameron* 11:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure we've moved away from the "duplicate" argument at all; the meat of Lawe's response, once the irrelevant personal commentary is discarded, is that "the list is not a duplicate list because it is not a list of realms, but a list of non-European countries who's monarch resides in Europe." That still, however, slides completely past the points that the section the list resides in is titled "Commonwealth realms", and the countries who's monarch resides in Europe are all Commonwealth realms. In other words, my question seems to have not been answered; still I wonder, how does the list having different colours and less information make it so much different as to warrant its existence? Especially when, as Cameron just pointed out, the list's main defender has already stated that the list is unimportant. --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
No, this is not the meat of our response. It is only the reputal to Cameron's one-stringed argument which ignores the United Kingdom. I'll give you an opportunity to read the above 3,500 words again. The British Empire was a European creation. There are libraries full of colonial and imperial history to back up what some of us have said previously. Are we really going to move away from the current compromise? --Lawe (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest something? I'm going to flip-flop a bit, having seen the list again. It is striking, when you compare the burst of colour and text with the rest of the article, that the list seems to have a significance far out of proportion to its worth. The list is supposed to be an incidental note. I mean, see how much space the list occupies and how much glitz it has.--Gazzster (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gazzster's assessment. Deglitzing implemented. --Lawe (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Lawe, you still haven't answered my simple question: how does the list having different colours and less information make it so much different to an already existing list as to warrant its existence? The crux of the matter here is that the information about colonialism and empire that you feel is important is already covered elsewhere, and the list does nothing to impart anything new to the reader about that topic. As per WP:SS, we should only have a summary here and a link to the main article, Commonwealth realm. Your adamant defence of the list is still rather confusing to me, Lawe, when I recall that you clearly said that the list is "unimportant". --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The list is not a duplicate list or preexisting list and it already exists. This answers the question put. The debate you are peristing with is unimportant, because the list is benign.
Simply restating that the list is not a duplicate doesn't answer the question of how the list is different enough from an already existing list to warrant the existence of the new list. --Miesianiacal (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Advantages of the List[edit]

  1. Wikipedia should not bow to pressure from lobby groups.
  2. The realms are sovereign, and as such, should be identified in own lists of heads of state as per all other sovereign states.
  3. We avoid confusing the distinction between monarchies.
  4. Commonweath realms all have their Monarchy in XXX article.
  5. Removing the list would create the contradictory implication of UK foreign office arrangements of over sovereign countries.
  6. Context makes the list necessary.
  7. To remove the list would be abandon NPOV as some countries may be known the the reader, but not all. We cannot place a user in a situation where they make a mistake.
  8. There is a unique relationship between the monarchy and the country concerned, although ML officers often find themselves exagerating the uniqueness.
  9. The article doesn't say the realms are European. It states, in an incidental manner, that the Monarch of the United Kingdom is also monarch of other nations outside of Europe. What are those nations, the reader would rightly ask.
  10. It is interesting that monarchies outside Europe have a European monarch.
  11. It is not verifiable information unless we include the list. To replace the list with analysis would be original research.
  12. If the list was removed, it could be argued as being POV in support of Republicanism by Stelth.
  13. The information has been included in the article for a long time.
  14. The problem of one list being slighly shorter than another list is not a real problem. 14 does not equal 15.
  15. The only reason this is being debated is because the previous consensus occurred when Miesianiacal was on a 3 week block. Consensus is important to how we work and by being reasonable, we can come to a consensus quickly and efficiently. That did occur. --Lawe (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Answer[edit]

Advantages

  1. 1 Is not an argument. It's like saying we should keep an elephant in our living rooms because the neighbour is pressuring us to get rid of it.
  2. 2 They don't need to be identified at all. They don't come into the scope of the article. They might be mentioned, incidentally.
  3. 3 This is a good point.
  4. 4 If they have their own articles, there is no need to list them here.
  5. 5 Possibly. Though the risk is not great.
  6. 6 Useful, but not necessary
  7. 7 Is really #3 and #5.
  8. 8 ML?
  9. 9 I said that, so it must be good lol!
  10. 10 Yes, it is interesting.
  11. 11 A link to Commonwealth realm would probably suffice.
  12. 12 With respect, hardly.
  13. 13 All kinds of stuff has been in articles for a long time, and removed.
  14. 14 No, it isn't. But that's not an argument for keeping.
  15. 15 Well, that's really you talking, isn't it? Best not to rake up history. Let's talk about the text, not each other.--Gazzster (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Gazzster, I admire your patience. We have written 4,000 words about 40 words!!! And I still cannot even guess what their problem is, because 95% the republican stuff was taken out. I answer question after question after question. How can Miesienical be so concerned that someone should read the Queen lives in England? Surely, it is well accepted that this is one of the most ridiculous and one-sided debates of all time. --Lawe (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It would probably go a long way towards an amicable resolution if you'd not make up arguments others never put forward. Please take another look at what I proposed as a solution to note that removing information on where the monarch lives was never my intent; nor have I seen anyone else suggest such a thing. Let's not get off track of the main point of debate, which is that the list is superfluous, and nothing more. --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want an example of superfluous, try the list of Royal Consorts which exists on the following pages:

Looking forward to your approval for their removal. --Lawe (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So you do wish us to remove the list on this page? Surely you don't expect our answers to be consistent when yours are not. Be careful Lawe, this is getting very pointy. --Cameron* 11:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think my answers are inconsistent. There is no WP:POINT issue. --Lawe (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
We seem, yet again, to be drawn off track onto other irrelevant topics; the royal consort lists are another matter, and discuassion about them can be opened up once more if it's felt necessary. Reasons for the existence of this list seem to still be lacking; those presented by Lawe above are not particularly strong, especially when the personal commentary and unfounded suspicions are stripped away. Why is it that RfCs never attract any attention? --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not irrelevant as the royal consort of the Canadian Monarch lives in Europe and is a European. Can you not see it goes to the very heart of this issue? --Lawe (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Lawe, please, you have been told repeatedly that where the monarch lives is not in question, nor is the inclusion of such information in the article. Unless I'm gravely mistaken (and perhaps Cameron or Gazzster will correct me if I am), we're discussing how that information should be presented, and how necessary a near duplicate list is to that task. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You have asked the same question for three weeks. The answer remains the same as all the other times. See Advantages of the List. Over 4,000 words have been written to help explain. This cross-examination will now end. --Lawe (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the same question is being asked because a proper answer is never forthcoming; as already explained, by myself and others, your "advantages" are debatable at best as a defence of the list. Thus, we still await a convincing reason as to why the same information cannot be communicated without the use of a list. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
No, this is not the case. This line of continuous cross-examination is unacceptable and must end. --Lawe (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, we will of course be hindered in our quest to reach a satisfactory end as long as you find it unacceptable that most editors here find your arguments unconvincing. We shall have to wait to see what result the RfC wields. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Miesianical I have asked you twice to stop this cross-examination. This is the third and final warning. There have been many editors who have reasonably contributed to this debate. A consenus was reached four weeks ago and Cameron got 90% of his wishlist agreed to. When you got off your 3-week block, you decided to help Cameron push through his views. The majority of editors you refer to do not exist. I proved my case repeatly and your cross-examination for three weeks is now the issue. I consider your conduct of being dismissive and of generating fatigue unacceptable. --Lawe (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Please discuss the article content and not the contributors. Also, I ask that you not threaten me, or others. If you're feeling fatigued, I might suggest you take a break from this debate. Though, I'd be happier if we could resolve this in a manner acceptable to all involved, including you. --Miesianiacal (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The warning stands as written and you have ignored it for the fourth time and last time. I am removing myself from this debate due to your poor conduct. --Lawe (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

The following paragraph was put forward as an alternative to explain the "non-UK-realms'-monarch-lives-in-Europe" scenario without using a list that essentially duplicates the one found at Commonwealth realm:

The United Kingdom equally shares its head of state with fifteen other sovereign countries, making it part of a global grouping known unofficially as the Commonwealth realms; none of these countries are located in Europe, besides the United Kingdom itself, where the monarch resides.

Perhaps we need to find out why, if at all, the above paragraph, or some tweaked variation of it, is insufficient, and instead the following, plus a list, is somehow superior:

The monarch of the United Kingdom is also the monarch of the fifteen other Commonwealth realms. Some realms have varying levels of support for republicanism. None of these countries are in Europe, however their monarch resides in Europe and is shared with the United Kingdom. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not see a need. The bottom paragraph makes three clear unambigous statements. The top one reads like a vague marketing statement for the "global group" with the unofficial name. --Lawe (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Disadvantages of the List[edit]

  1. No disadvantage has been raised that is correct. For example the duplicate list arguement is not true. Regardless, lists of all kinds are duplicated in any number of monarchy articles. List of Australian monarchs, List of New Zealand monarchs, etc, are duplicates of each other. If Cameron's argument makes sense it would mean that we should prioritise our efforts in removing these duplicate lists. Of course, the list we are discussing here is not a duplicate. --Lawe (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
True. Better argument against might be on grounds of asthetic value and 'hogging' article space.--Gazzster (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually we have repeatedly said that the list is almost a duplicate, it adds no value to this article. Indeed I would be perfectly happy to leave the list if you would just answer our question: what value does the list add to the article. All information in the list is covered in the list at Commonwealth realms: Let's go through it step by step shall we? (Presented in table form for added irony). --Cameron* 22:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
What is included in the list... Is this info already included in the list at Commonwealth realms?
Flag icons Yes
Links to the country articles (eg. Canada) Yes
Links monarchy articles (eg. Monarchy of Canada) Yes
Cameron, in reference to your "added irony" comment, it does not work. It is simply mocking the effort we have put into wikipedia. This is not step by step. Twelve answers to your question have already been provided, with Gazzster and Nightstallion also contibuting to why there is value. Also please do not remove the line about republicanism. As you disagree with republicanism, you should temper your responses to ensure the article is neutral. --Lawe (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Cameron's table is not mocking anything; it is a valid illustration of how the list in this article gives the reader absolutely nothing they can't find already in the list at Commonwealth realm. Pretending that your 12 answers, Lawe, are the end of the argument is going to get us nowhere; by my reading of the discussion here, nobody save you agrees with all 12, and the ones that do have support from other contributors to this debate are not arguments in favour of a list; the same information can be put forth using prose. --Miesianiacal (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
In fairness, I should point out that my answers to Lawe's points were both against and in favour of retaining the list. I was trying to provide some perspective. Personally, I think the list is far too showy and verbose.--Gazzster (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, they are also misrepesenting Nightstallion, who was very gracious as much of his work was removed. Cameron just removed the royal standards. What is it that's making it showy or verbose now? --Lawe (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
(Trying to get some final comments in before signing off...) By my reading of your responses, Gazz, you answered favourably to:
3. We avoid confusing the distinction between monarchies.
9. The article doesn't say the realms are European. It states, in an incidental manner, that the Monarch of the United Kingdom is also monarch of other nations outside of Europe. What are those nations, the reader would rightly ask.
10. It is interesting that monarchies outside Europe have a European monarch.
I'd agree with your agreement with those three points. However, it seems glaringly clear to me that we can cover them in the article by the use of prose, rendering the near duplicate list unnecessary. In fact, I thought I'd covered most of these three points in my proposed single paragraph above. --Miesianiacal (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe you still haven't addressed my table. Believe me, I was not mocking our effort. --Cameron* 22:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I added information to the table. --Lawe (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed it. The list focuses on content. --Cameron* 11:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Check :> --Lawe (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent]Are we to take it then that we all agree the list is redundant? --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

All that happened was Cameron removed my discussion point. So, no. --Lawe (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Too modern[edit]

I think this article is too focused on the modern. Monarchies of Europe should be written historically, describing tribal kings, middle age feudalism, the great empires and then the transition to either republic or constitutional monarchy. Monarchy across Europe has long been interconnected. The focus on the modern seems out of place. --Lawe (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a problem then with the title (and a fairly obvious one really).It should be 'Current monarchies in Europe'. Or even 'List of Current European monarchies'; the different monarchies don't really need separate treatment as they all have articles. Kudos for pointing the problem out to us.--Gazzster (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Succession in the UK and other realms[edit]

Regarding the "independent regulations" in the realms, this is not the case. There has been no change in succession law during the modern Commonwealth. To do this will require co-operation between the members of the Commonwealth at CHOGM via a declaration. The likely scenario would be that the UK would enact legislation and the other realms would consent by passing an Adoption Act. However, this could unfold in other ways. We will only know after it has happened. --Lawe (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall a BBC News article which stated that if Labour wanted to establish equal primogeniture in the UK, they could do that without the approval of the other Commonwealth realms, but that would break the personal union... Either way, I see no real reason to delete the useful link to the personal union page, so I've restored it, okay? —Nightstallion 15:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nightstallion. Many users are opposed to the term (myself excluded). You may wish to view the lengthy discussions on Commonwealth realm (talk page and archives). :) Best, --Cameron* 16:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The Commonwealth is not a personal union, and this view is supported by most of the academic literature. --Lawe (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Debatable. --Cameron* 15:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
On the question of the UK changing its succession laws without Commonwealth approval, this could be considered unconstitutional and the Queen may reserve accent. If the PM insisted, and she accented then the other nations may be forced to come to a decision about their own constitutional systems. A small nation would probably do nothing and accept the new line of succession. A larger nation may need to pass legislation. If they did not pass legislation, someone could take action in the High Court. Each national High Court could reach a different decision - but they would be more likely to just follow the leader. Finally, there is the question whether a younger brother of the new Queen would even accept such a throne. --Lawe (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to repeat the 16,000 words of discussion, but I just want to state that I don't see how one can even *debate* about whether the Commonwealth realms (sixteen states who have the same person as their head of state) do not meet the definition of "personal union" (a number of at least two states who have the same person as their head of state). —Nightstallion 23:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I said that (word for word) in the discussion! :) --Cameron* 16:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Personal union is a large can of worms. I discovered this recently when I was exploring Dual monarchy at Talk:Dual monarchy.For example: if a personal union is a union where the separate monarchies maintain separate organs of government, as wikipedia generally seems to suppose, several monarchies traditionally cited as personal unions do not fit. For example, Austria and Hungary from 1867 - 1918, which had a common Foreign Ministry, War Ministry and finances; Norway and Denmark; Russia and Congress Poland, etc. So I discovered that Wikipedia has not explored the concept well enough. Its article on the subject leaves much to be desired, and is tainted by much original research.

Leaving that aside, I can think of grounds for not regarding the realms of Elizabeth II as states in perfect personal union.

  • They did not 'join' any such union by request, conquest, or succession. They were part of a single Crown, which gradually split into separate ones.
  • They do not have their own laws of succession as separate monarchies in a true union do. Neither are they completely separate and independent monarchies.They have the same law of succession, the British one. In this sense the various monarchies are still unitary, not completely separate and independent.
  • Historically, the monarchies are not moves toward union with the United Kingdom, but precisely the reverse: movements away from union with the United Kingdom.

I suppose you could say they are like a personal union. But in truth their relationship is truly sui generis. The earth has seen nothing like it before.--Gazzster (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I would add two more things:

  • The Commonwealth of Nations is the dominant expression of the relationship between these realms. Countries in personal union are linked through the monarchy.
  • The concept of Personal Union is archaic. The last academic review of this topic was 1940's. We also no longer use the terms suzerainty and vassalage either. --Lawe (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Although a bill passed in UK, Canada like some countries to adopt absolute primogeniture to people born after 11/09/2013 they are not in force yet, because to alter british succession, permission is needed from all commonwealth realms, if not commonwealth coutries will have seperate monarchs. Then they practise male preference cognatic primogeniture until all commonwealth realms pass the law. Chamika1990 (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • King Harald V's eldest child is Princess Martha Louise, Haakon became heir aparent as eldest son. In 1990 absolute primogeniture was introduced to people born after 1991. Then monarch was King Olav V who has two daughters and youngest was a son. Agnatic primogeniture was applied to individuals born before 1972, as Harald was crown prince and his elders sisters and their blood lines still excluded from inheriting throne. Male preference cognatic primogeniture was applied to born between 1972 and 1991, then princess Martha Louise got a position in line of succession after his younger brother and his issue. Furthure children are sorted by absolute primogeniture as Princess Ingrid Alexandra is second now second in line displacing her younger brother. Chamika1990 (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

List dispute tag[edit]

If Miesanical could say which items should be changed in the list with the tag... --Lawe (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see the ongoing discussion above, Lawe. --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Your tag says the inclusion or exclusion of items from this list, or length of this list is disputed. This is not what we are discussing. --Lawe (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the exclusion of items from the list - all of them - is what we're discussing; I hope you weren't operating under some other impression. --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
You have used the wrong tag. You are objecting to the list, not the items in the list. --Lawe (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
They are one and the same thing. Still, could you perhaps suggest a better tag to use? --Miesianiacal (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest removing the tag --Lawe (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment[edit]

Commenting on above request[edit]

I see no reason why a full list of the other commonwealth realms would be needed on this article, aslong as it makes clear Queen Elizabeth II is monarch of other commonwealth realms that are not in europe.

I would however suggest the text description be changed..

"The monarch of the United Kingdom is also the monarch of the fifteen other Commonwealth realms. Some realms have varying levels of support for republicanism[13]. None of these countries are in Europe, however their monarch resides in Europe and is shared with the United Kingdom."

"Some realms have varying levels of support for republicanism." Is the bit i have a problem with. First of all as those countries dont need to be listed and are outside Europe the status of republican movements in those countries is not relevant. Also the link goes to Commonwealth Republics which has nothing to do with republicanism in commonwealth realms, its an article on members of the Commonwealth of Nations which are Republics unlike Commonwealth realms On that article i only see one mention of a commonwealth realm that might be turning into a republic, and thats about a referendum which has been scrapped.

I think the mention of the other realms in the notes of the table is a lot better than the full list in the disputed section above it. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion! :) Indeed why should republicanism be mentioned in an article about monarchy? Seems rather odd to me. --Cameron* 11:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this analysis makes sense to me. --Miesianiacal (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The lead paragraph of Commonwealth Republic says that "in contrast to the 16 Commonwealth realms they do not have Elizabeth II or any other monarch as their Head of state.... In most cases, the countries achieved independence as Commonwealth realms, and later became Commonwealth republics." The article thus establishes the relationship very clearly. --Lawe (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the both list and comment about republicanism seem somewhat superfluous here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This debate has gone on for two months. Previous comments from other users which are relevant here:

  1. "These monarchies could be called 'European' in the sense that they are European in origin and culture (through the British monarchy). --User:Gazzster 23:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Yes, I think it's fair enough to list the other realms over which Her Maj is Queen. But it should be enough just to list them.--User:Gazzster 10:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. I'd agree that the Canadian monarchy has its roots it Britain and that the countries are (to some extent) linked until this day but I'd like to see a source stating that the Canadian monarchy is physically and culturally located in Europe.... --User:Cameron* 16:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. The article doesn't say the realms are European. It states, in an incidental manner, that the Monarch of the United Kingdom is also monarch of 15 other nations outside of Europe. And now, it is just a list.--User:Gazzster 22:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  5. I can see how it could actually be helpful; to counter the idea that the realms are still part of a greater British empire, which is a common (but of course erroneous) belief.--User:Gazzster 22:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. About 90% of the what Cameron wanted out of this article has been duly changed. Nightstallion was gracious enough to see much of his writing changed. Cameron wants this list to go away so, so, so badly, but won't put the effort in to come up with a defencible reason. He's said "duplicate list" when it is not. Miesianiacal comes up with the "simple solution" that the reader should go back and forth between two articles to work out what is going on, even though each country listed is independent. --User:Lawe 13:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. The British Empire was a European creation. There are libraries full of colonial and imperial history to back up what some of us have said previously. Are we really going to move away from the current compromise? --User:Lawe 10:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  8. No disadvantage has been raised that is correct. For example the duplicate list arguement is not true. Regardless, lists of all kinds are duplicated in any number of monarchy articles. List of Australian monarchs, List of New Zealand monarchs, etc, are duplicates of each other. If Cameron's argument makes sense it would mean that we should prioritise our efforts in removing these duplicate lists. Of course, the list we are discussing here is not a duplicate. --User:Lawe (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  9. [If] you disagree with republicanism, you should temper your responses to ensure the article is neutral. --User:Lawe 06:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  10. I really don't see what harm is done by having a little info on the Commonwealth realms in this article in the appropriate context... —User:Nightstallion 17:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  11. Advantages of the List
  • The realms are sovereign, and as such, should be identified in own lists of heads of state as per all other sovereign states.
  • We avoid confusing the distinction between monarchies.
  • Commonweath realms all have their Monarchy in XXX article.
  • Removing the list would create the contradictory implication of UK foreign office arrangements of over sovereign countries.
  • Context makes the list necessary.
  • There is a unique relationship between the monarchy and the country concerned
  • The article doesn't say the realms are European. It states, in an incidental manner, that the Monarch of the United Kingdom is also monarch of other nations outside of Europe. What are those nations, the reader would rightly ask.
  • It is interesting that monarchies outside Europe have a European monarch.

Note that these advantages lists is a shorter version in consideration of Gazzster's comments. I also point out that a previous consensus occurred in late November 2008. --Lawe (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what others think, but, to me, this does nothing to convince of the need for a list. Whatever information needs be said about the Commonwealth realms - bar the UK - can be done with prose alone. --Miesianiacal (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
After six weeks of arguing and cross examination, Miesianiacal is not sure what others think. --Lawe (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Please be civil, Lawe. Best, --Miesianiacal (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Let me rephrase: So the hundreds of questions that you asked and you are not sure of what people think? To completely ignore overlook what other people have taken the time to write in response to your questioning is a big issue. The approach you have taken is very frustrating. An administrator entirely sees the point of my frustration. --Lawe (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Lawe, please focus on the content and not the contributor. Best, --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Informal tally[edit]

In order to have a quick reference for how each person feels, I'll make an informal tally below. I'm not sure, though, where Nightstallion stands on this issue, but, as he made the list, I'll assume he supports its inclusion. If I'm wrong about anyone's position, please feel free to correct me. --Miesianiacal (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

For inclusion of list
  • User:Lawe - The reason to include the list is that it shows the non-European countries which have their monarch residing Europe.
  • User:Nightstallion – If we remove the list, I want to include a lengthier prose paragraph on the relationship between the UK and the other Commonwealth realms as well as current developments (republicanism in Australia, Barbados, Jamaica).
Against inclusion of list
  • User:Cameron - Nobody is suggesting we remove the section completely, we merely wish to remove a duplicate table from this article.
  • User:Miesianiacal - Whatever information needs be said about the Commonwealth realms - bar the UK - can be done with prose alone.
  • User:GoodDay - May we please delete the Commonwealth realms (except the UK) from this article?
  • User:BritishWatcher - I see no reason why a full list of the other commonwealth realms would be needed on this article, aslong as it makes clear Queen Elizabeth II is monarch of other commonwealth realms that are not in europe.
  • User:Martin Hogbin - I agree that the both list and comment about republicanism seem somewhat superfluous here.
  • User:DrKiernan - duplicates information of questionable relevance, and unbalances the article by placing undue weight on a single monarchy (that of the Commonwealth realms) when each of the twelve monarchies of Europe should be treated with equal weight.
  • User:Gazzster - Remove list. A link to Commonwealth realm would suffice. It is not too much effort for someone who is interested to follow the link.

Vote[edit]

Can we take a vote on this somewhat tedious issue? Never mind consensus. A simple majority would do, so we can move onto something more interesting. Nay

  • Remove list. A link to Commonwealth realm would suffice. It is not too much effort for someone who is interested to follow the link. At present the list, not to mention the little flags, looks incongruous.--Gazzster (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you go back to what I said right at the beginning (on 08:59, 25 November 2008), we should come a compromise quickly, efficiently and co-operatively. Of course it is tedious to push this for weeks. I have been asked to provide reasons for the inclusion of the list (your idea, which I support), and you know that I/we have done so and done so repeatedly. In response to the specific points, a monarchy with a monarch in another country is itself incongruous and that is why it so appears. --Lawe (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree hold a vote to see what the majority currently thinks. Just for clarification when this debate was started was there the notes section listing all of the commonwealth realms under the table of European monarchs? The information presented in that notes section seems to present the information well and doesnt take up much room unlike the full list which is flagged above. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Objection to tally[edit]

Miesianical has created this tally at this time, because of the excellent material and presentation which I put forward a few hours ago. Not days, but hours. Timing is everything because for a few days this RfC was disconnected from the section were the debate was taking place. I have asked Martin Hogbin to review the arguments for retention, which he has not had a chance to read.

Furthermore there are errors. Cameron had since accepted that it is not a duplicate list. It was Gazzster's idea to create the list, not Nightstallion. Nightstallion agreed to the format, but it has a (?). A contribution from months ago (eg Goodday) should not be included as decisive in this sort of tally. The problem with Miesianicals approach is that there is no substance, just persisting and cross-examination. He has not even bothered to refute any point others have made. So I don't accept the tally and it is not even a consensus. --Lawe (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If I may correct you on a point. I was never in favour of creating the list. At first I was in favour of retaining the list. I changed my mind, on the grounds that it was showy, too large and unecessary, when a simple link would suffice. If I may also be bold, you appear to be keen to draw Miesianical into a showdown.--Gazzster (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
You gotta be kidding me! --Lawe (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Lawe has made a number of incorrect statements regarding me as well. This type of commentary is not relevant or productive. --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
No different to what you say when you are up for arbitration --Lawe (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have had a read through the various arguments regarding inclusion of the list of Commonwealth Realms and can see no compelling reason to include it. There is a link to the article which provides full information on the subject, I see no need to duplicate it here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Martin for your time. --Lawe (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe we've had enough input now. I'll make the changes. --Cameron* 21:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This was a very unimportant issue, but in the end after two months of absurd wrangling, we can also confirm the idea of reaching a quick and efficient consensus in a monarchy-related article is well and truely buried. --Lawe (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth realms paragraph[edit]

I think there was agreement that there should be a paragraph that briefly describes the Commonwealth realms in personal union with the UK; the present wording seems clumsy and insufficient to me. I earlier proposed the following:

The United Kingdom equally shares its head of state with fifteen other sovereign countries, making it part of a global grouping known unofficially as the Commonwealth realms; none of these countries are located in Europe, besides the United Kingdom itself, where the monarch resides. Amongst these non-British realms can be found varying levels of support for republicanism, as well as for continuance of the state's monarchy.

Some have said that the republicanism is not relevant to this article, others have said the opposite. I tend to lean to the former group, but am not adamant either way, as long as the coverage is balanced and not given undue prominence. Is the above acceptable? Changes? Suggestions? Gushing praise for my linguistic mastery? Offer them here. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That would seem to open the way for a small essay on a subject that's not relevant. In that case, you might as well restore the list.--Gazzster (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me, provided it is kept to that length. I think the issue of how strongly republicanism should feature in an article on monarchy is a separate one but your suggestion seems to be broadly in line with the rest of the article as it currently is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
What part opens the way for an essay, Gazz? Or, do you mean the whole thing? --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
There needs to be some comment showing the that the British monarchy is very different from the other European monarchies in that it is shared with fifteen other realms. A complete list of these realms is excessive, considering that there is a separate article on that very subject, but Miesianiacal's paragraph seems ideal to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign Military Order of Malta[edit]

Is SMOM a monarchy? (elected, like in the Holy See)213.240.214.139 (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't matter if it was or not, since it's not even listed in this article anyways. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland - Image:Location European monarchies.svg[edit]

Could someone please update this map? There is nobody pretending to the "Irish Throne". Regards, (Jack1755 (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

While you are technically correct that no one actively claims the throne of Ireland. I believe the map is supposed to indicate pretenders whether they actively claim the pretended throne or not. Germany is also highlighted although HI&RH Prince Georg Friedrich has stated several times that he does not "claim" the throne of Germany. Hope that helped. --Cameron* 18:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Pretender: a person who claims or aspires to a title or position.- OED. Nobody claimes or aspires to the title or position of monarch of Ireland, therefore, Ireland should be removed from the map immediately. (Jack1755 (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC))
Our article states "The term pretender is also applied to those persons on whose behalf a claim to a throne is advanced, regardless of whether that person himself actually makes an active claim." As the daughter of the last King of Ireland, Queen Elizabeth II is the pretender to the Throne of Ireland, whether she claims it or not. --Cameron* 19:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/pretender?view=uk) says otherwise. Stop trying to twist the definition of *pretender* Cameron. What the article states has no authority over the definition of the aforementioned word. The map needs to be correted A.S.A.P.(Jack1755 (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC))
Please assume good faith. I am not twisting the definition, I am merely presenting you with my opinion on the matter. Wikipedia works on consensus not demands... --Cameron* 20:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of wikipedia policy. One cannot have an *opinion* over a defined word, nor does wikipedia host opinions, No Original Research. Pretender is "a person who claims or aspires to a title or position" according to the Oxford English Dictionary. How can EIIR be *pretending* to the throne , if she is not actively claiming Ireland as one of her domninions? Kind Regards, (Jack1755 (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

"As the daughter of the last King of Ireland, Queen Elizabeth II is the pretender to the Throne of Ireland, whether she claims it or not". Margrethe II of Denmark, as the granddaughter of the last King of Iceland, Christian X of Denmark, is by your definition pretending to the throne of Icleand. The same goes for Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia, as Head of the House of Romanov, he is *pretending* to the Grand Duchy of Finland and the Kingdom of Poland (should they be added to the map?). Or, is Otto von Habsburg, as the last crown prince of Austria-Hungary, pretending to the Czech Republic as King of Bohemia? (should that be added too?). Long story short, we could higlight every country in Europe as having a *pretender* if we go by your definition of *pretendership*, Regards, Jack1755 (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you to a certain extent. It is merely our definition of pretender that seems to differ. See Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun 's article, his whole article is based on him being a pretender, even though he has been put forward by ome historians and channel four (admittedly a rubbish source when it comes to royalty!), while he himself is actually a republican and makes no claim to the throne personally. If you have a problem with the map (which indeed has faults), we should probably consider removing the map entirely as opposed to nitpicking about one particular state...--Cameron* 11:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The article previously had another map instead (republic and monarchies in Europe), which I actually preferred. I could revert to that. —Nightstallion 14:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
If Loudon was actually *pretending* to the throne of Great Britain, he could be prosecuted under the Treason Act 1702. According to - Pretender - a pretender is "is a claimant to an abolished throne or to a throne already occupied by somebody else." It does mention "The term pretender is also applied to those persons on whose behalf a claim to a throne is advanced, regardless of whether that person himself actually makes an active claim.[citation needed]", but as you can see, It has been branded with a "citation needed" tag since August 2007. Loudon does not actively claim the throne of the U.K. And I need a ciataion for that definition to believe you. I support Nightstallion's proposal of removing the map, and I agree with you Cameron that the current illustration has further inaccuracies, but, wikipedia does strive for accuracy. Regards, -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
As is advocating republicanism, but you won't find anyone being arrested. I too support the removal of the map. --Cameron* 20:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Since we are all in consensus then, I shall remove the map, and replace it with the other version. Regards, -- Jack1755 (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Monarchies in Europe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there is a separate heading for Commonwealth realms in the Current monarchies section. It is a one-sentence paragraph (also to be discouraged) and really could be added to the previous paragraph.

There are no references in the European microstates section. This should be addressed.

The article is well-written, images are good, the table adds to the article in my opinion. There is an issue with dead links the references section. Refs [10], [11], [16], and [17] are all dead and will need to be repaired.

I was left wondering if there are any concerns with succession of any of the current monarchs? For example in Japan the royal couple have had girls but no boys and they are a male primogeniture culture, which has left the status of the monarchy in crisis (my information is a bit dated so the crisis may have passed but you get the idea). It would an interesting tidbit if there were crowns in succession jeopardy. I won't hold the article from GA over it, just a suggestion.

At this point my primary issue is referencing, the European microstates section needs in-line citations and there are some dead links that need to be fixed. I will hold the article for a week and notify interested projects and editors. Please contact me at my talk page if you have any questions. H1nkles (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been notified that the primary editor for this article, User:Nightstallion is on vacation until 8/23. I will extend the hold until the end of the month the hopes that either Nightstalker or another editor will be able to address this review. H1nkles (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead to add that commonwealth realms part to the UK section (also saw no need to have it separate) & fixed up the links (removed 1 dead and found the other 2 in the archive sections in the respective websites). Removed the last link since it mentioned the same poll result as stated earlier. I'll leave the last remaining issue (in-line citations for the European microstates) to others to work on, at least for now. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm back from vacation now, but will still be rather busy the next few days, so if someone else has the time to add a few citations, that would be great. —Nightstallion 06:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Is this article ready to finalize the review? I haven't looked at it in quite a while and I don't want to proceed unless I have gotten confirmation that either the work is finished or there is no one who will pick up the work to complete it. Please advise. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still rather busy, but am in principle willing to add the missing citations in the microstates section; everything else has been addressed as far as I am aware. —Nightstallion 15:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I've just added a few US DoS references; are those sufficient or should I go looking for more? —Nightstallion 15:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, a note: H1nkles has been inactive for about a month, so in the interest of closing out these GARs, I'm taking them on. It'll take me a while to read through the discussion and comment, but I hope to get back to you soon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • More comments to add to H1nkles':
    • We really do not need flag icons in the lead. Cut them out and just make the list prose.
    • Remove all the bolding in the body sections used to highlight the countries (WP:MOSBOLD).
    • I'm still concerned about some of the referencing; for example, the article asserts the Vatican is a theocracy, but I do not see where that is referenced in the body.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. Regarding the refs, see http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Theocracy#The_Vatican for one, but I found that to be an obvious statement not in need of reference...? —Nightstallion 14:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The link you mentioned is a mirror of Wikipedia, so it's no good for sourcing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This would be a non-mirror. I think the statement that the Vatican City is *styled* a theocracy is really obvious, but if you feel strongly about it, feel free to remove it. —Nightstallion 23:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer a source. It's not like this is an article clearly related to the Vatican, where I would have different expectations for readers... considering this is all about the monarchy, I prefer to err on the side of WP:V :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hm. How about http://www.cqpress.com/context/articles/epr_theo.html ? —Nightstallion 08:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The Swedish link was not to reference a "hard" fact, just the "soft" fact that abolishment of monarchy is not considered impossible in Sweden... It wasn't a very good source, though, and I suppose the line of text doesn't really add much to the article, so we can remove it, if you want.
We can use http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/europe/lichtenstein?profile=politics&pg=7 instead of lowtax.net, if you want. —Nightstallion 08:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
That looks like a much better source. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. —Nightstallion 19:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Much better. As that addresses my concerns, I am passing the article. Thanks for your hard work. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Gladly; thanks for helping to improve the article! —Nightstallion 18:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Spain[edit]

Hi, I'm from Spain and reading the article I've noticed an error. In the table of the monarchies of Europe shows that the heir to the Spanish crown had no brothers (only tson), but this is not correct, since it has two older sisters. Since I do not speak English too well, I have not dared to change it, but I think they should do it. You can read the article about the Monarchy of Spain as a reference to verify that what I say is true.--85.53.180.173 (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

In English, a daughter is not a son. There are three children: a son and two daughters. The article is thus correct in saying "only son", but would not be if it said "only child". Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

British Crown Dependencies[edit]

Aren't the British Crown Dependencies not part of the UK, although linked more closely to the UK than the Commonwealth Realms are? They have a different title of head of state to the UK: Lord of Mann for the Isle of Man and Duke of Normandy for Guernsey and Jersey. Probably makes them deserving of a mention alongside the microstates. For that matter, Gibraltar's probably deserving of separate mention too. 149.241.56.169 (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

A point worth discussing. Not sure about Gibraltar, which I believe was ceded by Spain as a direct dependency of the Crown. But almost certainly Mann and the Channel Islands.Gazzster (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
They don't have different titles for their head of state. Lord of Mann and Duke of Normandy are informal styles rather than official titles. DrKiernan (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
True, but they do have autonomous legislatures and are neither parts of the United KIngdom nor dependencies of he UK. IN the 'toohard to define' basket?