Talk:Royalist

message: There are dozens of articles on the English Civil War that link here.  Suggest we point those all to Cavaliers. - PKM 20:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable, go for it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cavaliers

message: I agree that Royalism is indistinguishable from Monarchism. There should also be more prominence given to Anti-Monarchism. After all, Monarchism and Anti-Monarchism are just two two equal parts of the same coin.(Richy)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.141.166 (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your evidence for their being identical? The start of the royalist article claims that they're quite distinct, with monarchists supporting monarchy in general and royalists supporting a particular monarch or dynasty. Why do you think they should be conflated? Lereman (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: By that logic, Royalism is a form of Monarchism, and thus could be merged. Another reason is that neither article is very big and could very easily fit together. Charles Essie (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that reasoning. I would support a merge with royalism as a form of monarchism. I think that would preserve the real distinction between the two while condensing two small, related articles. Lereman (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

text: What evidence is there that they are not identical?  The current article doesn't cite a source for this definition.  Wiktionary and Dictionary.com both give both meanings ("monarchist" and "supporter of the extant monarch against rebels"). Iapetus (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The OED makes the same distinction as that drawn in this pair of articles. Lereman (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: There's a sense we're missing here. We may have no article on it, or maybe there're bits on it in various country articles: In many Commonwealth of Nations countries, there is ongoing and decades-running debate about whether to [continue to] recognize the British Monarch as the monarch also of that country, and (if so) whether the monarch should have any role whatsoever in government under the country's constitution (or by treaty), or for this monarchic role to be entirely ceremonial.  I know this debate exists strongly in at least Australia (having read some stuff about it) and in Canada (having lived there).  People in favor of the British Crown having a continued role, usually including some ability to impose upon the national government to some extent, are typically called royalists, though I've also heard monarchists and there may be other terms. I lived with a self-declared royalist in .ca, though we did not discuss the matter much, so I have little in the way of a sense of nuance about it all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  13:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another sense, in the British Commonwealth: for the idea of the UK monarch having having a role in the governance of member nations 

message: Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs sorting by section name alphabetically