The sources and visual testimony to a cult of personality around monarchies is arguably more documented and self-evident than Sisi's alleged cult of personality. At least in Sisi's section, the word 'alleged' is implied - I do not see why it cannot be used on a section about monarchy and those who see it as such (republicans) - which they clearly do. I believe that  has simply established this talk without any sincerity to a genuine debate, having decided what the outcome will be beforehand. Clearly there is documentary evidence to support the edit's point and that needs to be acknowledged (and plenty more out there, I'm sure). Those who ignore this are ironically invoking 2600 IP's point of allowing 'personal opinion' to narrow their outlook. We also need to appreciate that any piece of documentary evidence that supports Monarchy (or a dictatorial regime for that matter) is extremely unlikely to explicitly describe it as a 'cult of personality' given my points above that show many associate them with negative connotations rather than point-of-fact cultural phenomena. Therefore, 2600 IP's point about these links conveying anti-monarchist sentiment is largely irrelevant and misleading. Furthermore, that many cults of personality are only recognised as such after the political foundation that manifested them no longer exists and it becomes possible to think critically, contextualise and reflect upon them.  

 2600 IP's third point about the general overview of Elizabeth II's reign fails to contextualise the reference as it was used in the edit. The edit was used to support a point that many commentators perceived the present monarch's reign as a 'second Elizabethan Era'. It was more generally applied following on from an earlier point that British history is usually chronologically ordered and defined by reigns rather than say decades etc. in the popular and academic imagination. The fourth point was further used to highlight a point about cults developing around other personalities within the Royal Family. Given the standard bias of the ''Daily Mail' in favour of Monarchy, this is actually rather surprisingly critical. Overall, I do not regard the edit's content as especially aberrant and it makes some very unequivocal points and examples of how the British Monarchy, at least, does showcase many, if not more than standard, features evident in other accepted cults of personality. 

 Therefore, we need to acknowledge the following: 1. That there is a significant proportion of people and commentators in the public sphere who do regard monarchies as cults of personality and provide examples of things as presented in the original edit; 2. That a section within this page should be written stating thus; 3. That it be written in as balanced a manner as possible, explicitly stating that a viable group of people do perceive it as a cult of personality; 4. Locate appropriate and/or stronger sources if necessary