Talk:Monarchies in Europe

message: 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)
replies: text: Oh, by the way the article is 74kb by yahoo.  Joe  I 03:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: 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  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). Before 1953, this number was 45 %. --Valentinian (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Registration of voters in Denmark 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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 , see the box: "Foretrækker De en republik eller et kongehus?". Valentinian T / C 19:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I know, I know; still, 20% support on a completely non-partisan issue is quite interesting. —Nightstallion (?) 14:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republican movements 

message: 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)
replies: text: Feel free to write it!  —Nightstallion (?) 21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Then, what's the difference with the system they have in Britain? Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Luxembourg succession laws

message: # Wikipedia should not bow to pressure from lobby groups.
# 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.
# 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.
# There is a unique relationship between the monarchy and the country concerned, although ML officers often find themselves exagerating the uniqueness.
# 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.
# It is not verifiable information unless we include the list. To replace the list with analysis would be original research.
# If the list was removed, it could be argued as being POV in support of Republicanism by Stelth.
# The information has been included in the article for a long time.
# The problem of one list being slighly shorter than another list is not a real problem. 14 does not equal 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)
thread_title: Advantages of the List

message: Advantages
#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 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 This is a good point.
#4 If they have their own articles, there is no need to list them here.
#5 Possibly. Though the risk is not great.
#6 Useful, but not necessary
#7 Is really #3 and #5.
#8 ML?
#9 I said that, so it must be good lol!
#10 Yes, it is interesting.
#11 A link to Commonwealth realm would probably suffice.
#12 With respect, hardly.
#13 All kinds of stuff has been in articles for a long time, and removed.
#14 No, it isn't. But that's not an argument for keeping.
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: If you want an example of superfluous, try the list of Royal Consorts which exists on the following pages:
* List_of_Canadian_monarchs#List of royal consorts of Canada
* List_of_Australian_monarchs#List of royal consorts of Australia 
* List_of_New_Zealand_monarchs#List of Royal Consorts of New Zealand
Looking forward to your approval for their removal.  --Lawe (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I don't think my answers are inconsistent. There is no WP:POINT issue. --Lawe (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Answer 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Alternative

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Too modern

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Debatable. --Cameron* 15:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: I'm pretty sure I said that (word for word) in the discussion! :) --Cameron* 16:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Succession in the UK and other realms

message: If Miesanical could say which items should be changed in the list with the tag... --Lawe (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the ongoing discussion above, Lawe. --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I would suggest removing the tag --Lawe (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List dispute tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, this analysis makes sense to me. --Miesianiacal (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: After six weeks of arguing and cross examination, Miesianiacal is not sure what others think. --Lawe (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be civil, Lawe. Best, --Miesianiacal (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Lawe, please focus on the content and not the contributor. Best, --Miesianiacal (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commenting on above request 

message: 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)
thread_title: Informal tally

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: You gotta be kidding me! --Lawe (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: No different to what you say when you are up for arbitration --Lawe (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Thank you Martin for your time. --Lawe (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we've had enough input now. I'll make the changes. --Cameron* 21:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vote 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You gotta be kidding me! --Lawe (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: No different to what you say when you are up for arbitration --Lawe (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Thank you Martin for your time. --Lawe (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we've had enough input now. I'll make the changes. --Cameron* 21:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Objection to tally

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What part opens the way for an essay, Gazz? Or, do you mean the whole thing? --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Commonwealth realms paragraph 

message: Is SMOM a monarchy? (elected, like in the Holy See)213.240.214.139 (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Yes, it is. The ruler is styled 'Most Eminent Highness' The Prince and Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  That doesn't necessarily make it a monarchy. There are plenty of princes and grand masters of orders who are not monarchs. DrKay (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sovereign Military Order of Malta 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.", 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ireland - Image:Location European monarchies.svg 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Spain 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Monarchies in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110525010614/http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/europe/lichtenstein/?profile=politics to http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/europe/lichtenstein?profile=politics&pg=7
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060529175924/http://www.aftenposten.no:80/english/local/article1157205.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1157205.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There are twelve extant monarchies, but only twelve pictures of the present incumbents - 'only' twelve, because Andorra has two 'co-princes', both of whom are pictured here, so there should be thirteen. The missing picture is of the Pope.188.230.248.85 (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope's picture? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monarchies in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.wort.lu/wort/web/en/luxembourg/articles/2011/06/153564/index.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141227161052/http://hetis2013.nl/achtergrond/ to http://hetis2013.nl/achtergrond/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: De Blois & Van der Spek (2004) is in the reflist, but I couldn't find the actual book in the sources. Perhaps it's not quite GA-level after all? —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) (Talk – Contribs) 20:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full citation needed 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: I simply changed the image of King Charles III in the Table of monarchies in Europe section. RicLightning (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles III's portrait