Talk:Monarchy of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

message: There's currently a discussion at Talk:Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act about the constitutional significance of the Act and its impact on the relationship between the UK, the Crown and the dominions. The problem is that the article as it stands makes some very sweeping but questionable claims about the impact of the Act on the status of the monarch vis-a-vis the dominions. Input from anyone with any knowledge of or interest in this area would be greatly appreciated. This notice may be put up on a couple of other talkpages. Iota 00:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for outside input: Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927

message: The monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britan and Northern Irland is paid in an average year $52.8 million for simply existing along with £15 million for the maintenance of the royal palace. The Queen's personal wealth is estimated at £1.15 bn which excludes:
- The Queen's privately owned estates at Sandringham and Balmoralalong with 6 other properties, including Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.
- £72m in Jewels
- £7.1m worth of cars
- £3.6m in race horses
- a £102m stamp and medal collection
- £1m in furs 
Is this the cost of a royal figurehead?
  
This informatin is from the very helpful website of the 
Socialist Party Leicesterand my figures are backed up by several back editons of the indipendent
p.s. before anyone asks I am British
::My god, these republicans are spawning everywhere! *rolls eyes*
:This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. If you can find some better source for the figures than a tripod website (e.g. an actual link to those independent's article), then you're welcome to include that into the article as say "Cost of the British monarchy". And I'm sure you're welcome to write a section on arguements people have on why UK shouldn't have a monarchy if you can do it NPOV. -- KTC 17:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there any good reason for the queen of the United Kingdom to exist (except the name) 

message: As noted in my response on featured article candidate, that image from commons is illegal.  I've noted it for speedy deletion on the commons. Someone care to find a legal Series C - E note to illustrate the same point? -- KTC 20:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bank of England GBP 5 image copyvio. 

message: The facts regarding Charles the Second are misleading. There is no clear mention that this Monarch actaully did exercise his prerogative and disolved Parliment to rule absolutely. -- Steven Zenith 21:42, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Correction, I mean Charles II not George II. Steven Zenith
I'm sorry, that was an unforgivable exclusion. I have added a note to this effect. -- Emsworth 22:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles II 

message: Why does British Crown redirect here to British monarchy? As the Crown is shared equally between the UK and Commonwealth realms, shouldn't this justify it's own article? I understand that this is already explained in a section here - however, anti-monarchists (in Canada or Australia, for example) can use this to fuel the argument that there is no distinction between the British Crown and British monarchy, e.g. in reality, the Queen rules Canada not as Queen of Canada, but as Queen of the United Kingdom, as there is no real distinction between these two roles. But the reality is that there is a distinction and the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the UK are legally separate persons, both sharing the British Crown, i.e. the British monarchy does not rule over Canada - the Canadian monarchy does.
Does anyone else think there might be justification for a separate British Crown article on these grounds? Also see Talk:Monarchist League of Canada for why I have brought up this issue. SouthernComfort 7 July 2005 08:38 (UTC)
:I think the point is that the British Crown is just British.  Canada has a Canadian Crown, Australia has an Australian Crown, and so on.  The fact that these different legal institutions are all based around the same individual is constitutionally irrelevant.   --Jfruh 7 July 2005 12:57 (UTC)
::Actually, there is (apparently) legally no such thing as a "Canadian Crown" - as another editor pointed out in the above listed talk, the term "Canadian Crown" has never appeared in any legal documents, whereas the "British Crown" has. This is due to the fact that the British Crown is shared equally, and is not connected to just one legal institution. That fact alone I would think would justify a separate article to reflect this equality, rather than to show what may be perceived as "preference" for a single institution (which might be construed as saying that the legal person of Queen of the UK is above that of Queen of Canada, and so on). SouthernComfort 7 July 2005 13:30 (UTC)
::Also, the British Crown is not centered around one individual, as for example, the Queen of the UK and Queen of Canada are legally separate and distinct persons. SouthernComfort 7 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)
*Although equal in legal terms, on a sentimental level the British angle has a kind of "first among equals" status, so, while less than entirely accurate, it's not unreasonable for an encyclopedia with an international perspective.  Maybe we should have something like "Monarchy in the Commonwealth Realms" that could be a disambiguation page for all the different meanings. Peter Grey 9 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)
The "British monarchy" is also "first among equals" in political terms as the abolition of the monarchy in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc would have no impact on the monarchy in Britain whereas the abolition of the monarchy in the UK would almost certainly lead to its extinction in the rest of the Commonwealth Realms.AndyL 9 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)
:Politically-motived opinion and orginal research - not encyclopedic. Peter Grey 9 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)
::These are Talk pages, not main article pages (the links you cite deal with Wikipedia articles) so your admonition is out of place and little more than an attempt to silence a point you do not like but are unable to rebut. Do you deny that what I say above is almost certainly the case?AndyL 9 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)
:::"Almost certainly" can't be measured. I have no issue with your expression of your personal opinions, just your mixing them up with facts. Peter Grey 9 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)
Ok, let's deal with facts. The fact is that the system in the "Commonwealth Realms" (outside of the UK) was designed with the assumption that the monarch would be resident in London. Do you deny that?AndyL 9 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)
:The monarch has to physically be somewhere. The facts have been adequately dealt with several times over. Note also the constitutional implications of the King assuming residence in Halifax were previously considered during World War II. Peter Grey 9 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)
::Really, where is this issue dealt with?  "The monarch has to physically be somewhere" seems a silly statement, on one level she/he can hardly be physically nowhere.  If it means more than this then we have the problem that Britain has an unwritten constitution, so it's drastic to say something cannot happen. PatGallacher 2005 July 9 17:55 (UTC)
The fact is that the monarch is present most of the time in Britain. She has spent 2% of her reign in Canada and, I suspect, around that percentage or less in the other Commonwealth Realms.
The fact is that this means there is quite a different relationship between the monarch and a) her British subjects and the British political system and b) her subjects and the political systems in the other Commonwealth realms. 
The most obvious constitutional difference is that the duties and constitutional role played by the Governor General in the Commonwealth Realms is played by the Queen herself in Britain. i.e. The Queen, with increasingly rare exceptions, does not give royal assent to bills passed in Commonwealth legislatures or even give the Throne Speech (what in Britain is called the Queen's Speech because the Queen herself gives it). She does not name the Prime Ministers in Commonwealth Realms, does not resolve constitutional or parliamentary crises that may result in Commonwealth Realms and does not have weekly meetings with her Commonwealth PMs.
Now monarchists like to believe that the Queen is fully informed and intimately involved in, let's say, Canadian affairs. The reality is that in the Commonwealth Realms the role of the monarchy has developed so that it is really more of an abstract and theoretical entity, much more so than in Britain.
Let me give you a hard example. We now know that the Queen was not at all consulted on the dismissal of Gough Whitlam in Australia in 1975. This was done by Governor General Kerr in her name but she was not consulted or even informed until after it had happened.
Let me give you another example. We now know thanks to the 30 year disclosure rule that the Prince Philip and the Prince of Wales quite regularly write letters and make phone calls to Cabinet ministers and senior bureaucrats in Britain complaining of this or that government policy (this is actually quite shocking considering all the propaganda we are fed about the monarchy being "above politics"). We also know from biographies and autobiographies that UK Prime Ministers do give some consideration to what the Queen thinks about this or that thing or even this or that minister. It may not be a decisive consideration but its in the picture. That is simply not the case for Commonwealth Realm PMs. There is no evidence  of royals writing Canadian or Austrlain ministers complaining about this or that policy or of Canadian or Australian PMs being particularly concerned about what the Queen might think, at least not to the extent as is the case in the UK. 
Now you might say but the Governor General acts on HMs behalf so there's really no difference. But there is, the Queen's role in the UK is unmediated, in the realms it is mediated by a GG and she is almost a complete absentee from the process.
Therefore, it's quite clear that her role is much more important in the UK than elsewhere. 
Also, the fact that  the systems in the Commonwealth Realms are designed with an absentee monarch in mind and have a GG in place Britain becoming a republic would have an impact on the realms where Commonwealth realms becoming republics has had no impact on the Queen's role in the UK. 
The fact is if Britain became a republic the Commonwealth Realms would have to figure out which one of them would become the new home for the Windsors, or if some sort of shared custody arrangement should be worked out where, say, she spends one month in each realm.
The fact is they would also have to deal with the royal family's wishes, including the possibility that they would not want to move to Canada or Australia but would prefer to either remain in a British republic as ordinary citizens or live in exile in Europe (or even the US). That would raise the possibility of abdication and having to find a new monarch or even of  splitting the monarchy into pieces.
Then there's the question of what happens to the GG and the other political and constitutional impacts of one of the realms suddenly having a resident monarch.
Bosh! you might say. Original research (actually no, because the differences between her role in the UK and elsewhere are well known and the realities of say, her not being consulted about the Australian constitutional crisis are well documented) Speculation! Well the possibility that the UK may become a republic is speculation, but the implications of that on the realms is based on the facts that her constitutional, political and social role in the realms is much more remote than in the UK and, in any case, quite a lot of constitutional theory has to deal with speculation (what happens if this happens in parliament, or if this happens in an election, or if a PM does this or refuses to do that). And the fact is that all these questions arise out of the fact that the Queen is resident in the UK and not resident anywhere else despite the legal fiction that she is as much a Canadian or Jamaican as she is a Briton.
"Although equal in legal terms, on a sentimental level the British angle has a kind of "first among equals" status" No, I'm sorry, its more than sentimental. Even putting aside the hypothetical situation of the UK becoming a republic the difference between her constitutional  role in the UK and in the other realms is quite clear to anyone with eyes to see and lacking the tunnel vision caused by wishful thinking and sophistry. AndyL 22:27, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Governor General is not a mediator. Peter Grey 23:10, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He also fails to realise that without the Monarch there is no Governor General.  This is typical of the republican make-believe which pretends the Governor General is some sort of stand-alone figure.  The Governor General is only, and will always only be, the Monarch's representative within a certain country.  Without the Sovereign's authority, the Governor General is nothing. --gbambino 18:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The Governor General can be compared to an agent or power of attorney.  It still invalidates the alleged 'substance' of your argument.  On the subject of intellectual honesty, Crown also has more than one meaning. Peter Grey 02:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: British Crown

message: It is the Sovereign's prerogative to declare war, make peace, and direct the actions of the military; as usual, the power is used only on ministerial advice.
I listened to an interesting discussion on the  BBC Radio 4's "Today Programme" a number of years ago about the command and control of the launching of Nuclear weapons. A former member of the Royal Navy was explaining that one of the checks on the launch of Trident missiles was that as the minister who would request that a launch be made could not order a captain of a sub to the launch, Hence the expression "HMG on behalf of her majesty request and requires that HMS ...", this is because the commanders of the armed forces report to the  crown not to the government, and the launch could not be made by the admiral ,in charge of the fleet of subs, without the explicit "advise" (permission) of the relevant government minister. This was constitutionally correct because the Sovereign "direct[s] the actions of the military". This was seen as a valid mechanism to prevent the ordering of a launch by a minister who had become deranged and wished to take out France or some other enemy^H^H^H^H^HAlly without the members of the armed forces breaking their oaths by refusing to obey orders. If someone could find a written record of this idea I think it would make an interesting addition to the article. Philip Baird Shearer
BTW something which came up in the interview which amused and pleased the presenters of Today progreamme was that if the Trident subs did not receive their usual military communications then one of the checks that the captain was to use to see if the UK still existed was to listen for the Today Programme. Philip Baird Shearer 09:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nukes 

message: I was recently thinking about the Queen's reserve power to withhold the royal assent to Acts of Parliament.  I was wondering if any constitutional experts agree with my (somewhat disconcerting) possibility.  
Since most of the time the Government initiates and wins all bills in Parliament, they have every wish for the Queen to grant assent.  But what if they lose a vote? Recently, the Blair Government dramatically lost the vote on their anti-terror legislation in the Commons.  If this were to pass unamended by the Lords, it would need Royal Assent.  However, since Blair disapproves of the legislation, he may see fit to exercise the Royal prerogative to change it.  Since the Queen uses all prerogatives on the advice of the Prime Minister, would she be bound to follow Blair's advice if he advised her to withhold the Royal Assent?  And if she refused, would this be considered improper defiance of the Cabinet's will?  I was wondering if anyone considered this.  It seems it would indicate the extraordinary powers the Crown possesses, and through it, the Prime Minister.
* If the Government losses a key vote, then they will hold a "Vote of No Confidence" ie asking Parliament to vote on whether the Government should continue. If they loss that, the government would usually resign, and a general election would be called. However, they usually win these, as the MPs who voted against them on the key vote, are unlikely to vote against the existence of their own government. After a win, there is usually a revote and the government would likely win this, or some compromise effort is taken. This happened in the previous Conservative government when they were voting to approve the Maastricht Treaty. Astrotrain 11:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen's Veto Power 

message: "Nevertheless, a large majority of the British public supports the continuation of the monarchy."
All polls put the support for the monarchy at 75-93% and support for republicanism at 7%-25%. Most polls put republicanism at circa 18%. Tracking polls suggest around 13%. That qualifies as "a large majority of the British public supports the continuation of the monarchy." 21:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this sentence substantiated ?  

message: Ok, in summary, laws that had their last update in the 18th century give immense power to one person who must belong to a certain bloodline who must give up their place if there's a male candindate before her. Right. Can someone explain to me whether the people that accept that consider it a tourism attraction or a proper way of governance? Because, I don't want to believe it's the second. However, I tend to think the main reason this thing exists is because UK didn't have any major internal political crisis for a very very very long time so they didn't have a chance to see a change because it may have been more trouble than keeping things the way they work, "if it works and there's no much trouble, don't fix it" kind of thing. I also keep hearing brits humoring "we have an agreement, the queen doesn't make trouble and the people don't behead her". I wonder what's really going on in the background in those "monarchy acceptance" votes.
:It's a stable, apolitical and non-divisive way to choose a head of state, unlike the circus and partisanship that surrounds the election of a president.  This article sums it all up nicely: The Scotsman: Queen of our time --gbambino 19:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer: people that accept that consider it a proper way of governance.  No system of governance is perfect - this system works as well or better than any other, and anyone who has lived under an unstable government would appreciate that.  Because the UK, Canada, Australia, Jamaica, etc. are democracies, no-one has to justify their acceptance. Peter Grey 23:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Because sensible people the world over realise that electing your head of state isn't always such a good idea. Proteus (Talk) 23:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Electing a ceremonial president can't really do any harm, though. —Nightstallion (?) 13:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: People who care, i.e. who are interested in politics, usually can. Naming Horst Köhler and Giorgio Napolitano is rather easy for me, though. On the other hand, do you happen to know the name of the king of Swaziland? You must know, since royals are evidently far more well-known outside their countries by your reasoning...  —Nightstallion (?) 20:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And you get bonus points if you can pronounce the King of Nepal's name! --203.163.71.197 21:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Nonsense, in my opinion. Having a single person as an important political figure for such a long time is detrimental in my opinion, not positive. —Nightstallion (?) 23:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I disagree Nightstallion Brian | (Talk) 00:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there acceptance of it? 

message: User:TharkunColl appears to demand the removal of the dablink at the head of this article which clarifies that this page concentrates on the history of the Monarchy from the perspective of the United Kingdom.  This dablink helps clarify the nature of the Monarchy over the Commonwealth Realms, and directs readers to where they can find further information.  The dablink was also used on this article first, and subsequently copied to Monarchy in Canada, Monarchy in New Zealand, and Monarchy in Australia, so that now all four articles link to each other.  TharkunColl's edits to articles related to this topic have clearly demonstrated a personal lack of satisfaction with the fact that the Monarchy of the UK is shared with other countries, but, of course, POV should not guide how Wikipedia is composed. --gbambino 05:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And aside from that being a strange viewpoint, TharkunColl has also breached the good faith requirement :-) --Lholden 07:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of dablink

message: The introductory paragraph explains that the British Monarchy can trace its roots back to the Kings of the Angles, etc. This seems odd. Scotland is only mentioned via the Union of the Crowns. Shouldn't the British Monarchy trace its roots back no further than the Union of the Crowns under James VI (I of England)? Or, shouldn't the article include how far back the British Monarchy can trace its Scots roots? Right now it seems the opening paragraph described (Albeit however briefly) the history of the English Monarchy.
Kaenei 12:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because it was the English state that annexed Scotland, and not the other way round. TharkunColl 13:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Scots king was given the English throne because he was descended from the kings of England. The English later tired of the Stuarts and deposed them in favour of the Hanoverians. When the Scottish parliament refused to agree to this, its members were bribed and bullied into voting for their own abolition. On 1 May 1707 a small group of appointed Scottish MPs arrived at the English parliament and took their seats. Whatever the wording of the Act of Union says, it was not a union of equals. TharkunColl 17:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You are confusing "law" with "fact" and there are numerous historical sources that discuss the true nature of the union with Scotland. If "law" was the only criterion allowed, then we would be forced to state that the USSR, for example, was a democracy, because that's what its constitution said. Under English law, the kings of England were also kings of France, because that was part of their title. And Idi Amin was king of Scotland, because he declared himself such. Please go and look up the difference between de jure and de facto. TharkunColl 18:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction seems odd to me

message: The reasons given for attribution of Pope Adrian IV's grant of Ireland to the King of England are WP:POV. The fact is that Adrian IV was an Englishman, and sided (in a case of COI) with the See of Canterbury in an internal ecclesiastical dispute with the See of Armagh. This section should be re-written. By the way, following the excommunication of King Henry VIII, another Pope "granted" Ireland to the King of Spain. As usual, nobody asked the Irish what they thought! Tricky 09:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish Heresy?

message: Surely the idea of an encyclopedia is to reveal and not to cloud an issue? By redirecting British Crown to British monarchy confusion has been created. Several related articles on this same Wikipedia matter are obfuscating material. Perhaps the clearest that I have come across is the explanation of a British subject versus a British citizen. I think that article is clear and to the point. This one is anything but clear and to the point.
An issue arises because the British Crown is NOT the same as the British Monarch!
The Crown is a corporation sole - an artificial person like a company that holds property and has rights. In the UK it also has subsidiary delegates such as the Cabinet and Judiciary.
On the other hand the Monarch is the representative of the Crown - in other words just as the president of a company is not the company, so the Queen is not the Crown. True she wears a crown on her head - but that can be compared to a trademark or a logo of a company represented by its president.
The Privy Council advises the Monarch but the Privy Council is not the Crown yet it acts within the corporation sole that is the Crown. However, there are missing links and explanations concerning the working of the Privy Council in context with related articles (there are several related articles that require a second look.)
These topics need to be revisited because they are as clear as mud in many instances and links will take a reader from subject to subject and back to where they started without ever learning the answer to the question that they began with.
A good starting point leading to an undoing of this confusion will be in unhitching the link that sends a researcher looking for the British Crown to an article about the Monarch when other articles plainly state that the Monarch is not the Crown!
I will defer this task to someone who has a lot more background knowledge than myself but I suggest that the person who undertakes this task is NOT a government employee who is used to writing gibberish - a great combination would be someone has studied this matter but who has the gift of cutting to the chase and can write in a clear and concise manner. 70.128.87.235 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Going around in circles

message: In the "History", in the "English Monarchy" sub-section, the last paragraph talks of Elizabeth I.  The sentance begins "The Elizabethan era is notable for its amnazing propaganda ...".  
This is a rather obscure word, "amnazing".  Perhaps the intended word was "amazing", but that raises other questions, especially in the context of the later remark of "... in the eyes of those who fell for it".  Here the author seems to be expressing contempt.
Those of us to the west of the pond, myself in particular, think of amazing as 'overwhelming with surprise", "sudden wonder", "to be greatly astonished", or even "bewildered" or "perplexed".  If that be the case, I would invite to author to illiminate the issue.  
Amazment would seem to be a secondary reaction, and the author has glossed over the primary reaction, whatever it may have been.  And then there is the issue of who was amazed; Her subjects at that time, people other than her subjects, or a few historians now?  
I like the article, I liked the section, and I liked the paragraph.  I'm not sure that "amnazing" is the right word.  Thank you.
--Wbfairer2 19:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's that word: "amnazing" 

message: I have slightly amended the introduction. It was misleading in that it seemed to trace the earliest pedigree back to the anglo-saxons, and then discussed the Scottish antecedents of the British monarchy without distinguishing these from the Anglo-Saxon's adequately. In fact the British monarchs derive thier most ancient pedigree from their descent from the Kings of Scots, quite distinct from their Anglo-Saxon heritage. I inserted a single phrase to try and indicate that these are two distinct heritages. 86.143.39.55 00:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  earliest pedigree 

message: I am seeing some issues with this article and the FA criteria. Namely, some parts of the article are not referenced, and the citation format is sometimes inconsistent. (t · c) buidhe 21:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the concerns that buidhe expressed above; there are still several uncited sentences and paragraphs. In addition, I think there are some sections that are too long and need to be trimmed or divided into sections. Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? Z1720 (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020|FA sweeps]] 

message: There seem to be some traditions surrounding the monarchy - not touching them, not speaking about conversations with them later, bowing or curtseying, wearing a hat, not speaking until spoken to, etc., which are somewhat interesting in that they seem to be changing and causing controversy as they do so. (See e.g. .) Should that be covered in this article or somewhere else? Royal protocol just redirects to flags, which is not helpful. -- Beland (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be a separate article on this topic, also covering the famous hug from Michelle Obama.  Peter Ormond 💬 08:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal protocols 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Queen of England (disambiguation) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12#Queen of England (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Queen of England (disambiguation)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Please handle the incoming redirects  and  and the disambiguation page Queen of England (disambiguation)
Please add the hatnote
-- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Terasail[✉️] 11:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request (QofE)

message: Please add a hatnote to handle the incoming redirect  and the combined disambiguation page Scottish queen (disambiguation) (which is for Scottish Queen, queen of Scotland, Queen of Scots)
Please add the hatnote
-- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Terasail[✉️] 11:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request (QofS)

message: I'm currently working on expanding the history section in sandbox mode, but I realize that adding too much content would make the article too long. What do editors think about creating a separate History of the monarchy of the United Kingdom article that could go into greater detail into the evolution of the monarchy, including changes in its powers and role overtime? Ltwin (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I will support this proposal. We have similar articles about History of monarchy in Canada, and History of monarchy in Australia. Monarchy in the British Isles started way before than in Canada or Australia. Also, I think that this article focuses on history too much, rather than giving detail info about its the monarchy's functions in present time (See Monarchy of Canada which mostly focuses on the monarchy's function in the present).  Peter Ormond 💬 15:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think I'll go ahead and make the page, copying the history section this article currently has and will expand as I go. Then, if anyone wants to, they can begin trimming this article's history section where they think it needs it. Ltwin (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it makes a lot of sense to have a dedicated article. The History section is currently almost exactly half this article. CMD (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. The new article is here History of monarchy in the United Kingdom. Ltwin (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate history article? 

message: The latest YouGov polls show a sharp decline in support for the monarchy and nothing is mentioned on the page, as well as the steady growth of controversy. Reading this page it seems that the whole UK is enthusiastic about the throne.
Come on, they had to abolish the royal protocol because it was no longer sustainable in front of public opinion. Probably not long before the obligation to address with "Majesty" or "Royal Highness" will be abolished. In practice, anyone can now treat a member of the RF as an ordinary citizen. If the establishment of the monarchy is not respected enough even to justify the bow or the prohibition of speaking first, how can one think it is popular? The fact that the paparazzi are always following them or that people have gone to the Jubilee does not mean that they are popular, only that they are puppets with the crown that attract onlookers and people there more for the event than for the person or institution, especially foreigners.
I think the page must reflect this massive loss of consent and referential respect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.231.250 (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity and protocol